The politics of attention: gaze-cuing effects are moderated by political temperament

Abstract

Gaze cues lead to reflexive shifts of attention even when those gaze cues do not predict target location. Although this general effect has been repeatedly demonstrated, not all individuals orient to gaze in an identical manner. For example, the magnitude of gaze-cuing effects have been reduced or eliminated in populations such as those scoring high on the Autism-Spectrum Quotient and in males relative to females (since males exhibit more autismlike traits). In the present study, we examined whether gaze cue effects would be moderated by political temperament, given that those on the political right tend to be more supportive of individualism-and less likely to be influenced by others-than those on the left. We found standard gaze-cuing effects across all subjects but systematic differences in these effects by political temperament. Liberals exhibited a very large gaze-cuing effect, whereas conservatives showed no such effect at various stimulus onset asynchronies.

The politics of attention contextualized: gaze but not arrow cuing of attention is moderated by political temperament

“…Whereas a reliable cuing effect was present for both gaze and arrow cues in the case of liberals, conservatives showed a reduced cuing response only for gaze cues. These results provide further support for the pattern reported by Dodd et al (2011) and are consistent with the view that conservatives are less susceptible to the influence of spatial cues provided by other individuals. …”

“…Next, they administered a standard gaze-cuing task with three stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) between cue and target onset and found a reliable gaze-cuing effect among liberals but not among conservatives. According to Dodd et al (2011), this may be consistent with the idea that conservatives, as compared to liberals, assign greater value to personal autonomy and therefore might be less likely to be influenced by others. However, the pattern reported by Dodd et al (2011) might not be confined to gaze cues and, instead, reflect a reduced attentional response to any central cue that ''pushes'' spatial attention.…”

“…According to Dodd et al (2011), this may be consistent with the idea that conservatives, as compared to liberals, assign greater value to personal autonomy and therefore might be less likely to be influenced by others. However, the pattern reported by Dodd et al (2011) might not be confined to gaze cues and, instead, reflect a reduced attentional response to any central cue that ''pushes'' spatial attention. In other words, conservatives might prove to be less sensitive to any cue that is interpreted as an external drive.…”

“…Indeed, a greater gazecuing effect has been observed in people with higher need for belongingness (Wilkowski et al 2009) and higher levels of anxiety (Fox et al 2007). Dodd et al (2011) have observed that also political temperament moderates gaze cuing. They first measured political orientation by asking participants to indicate their standing in relation to a series of sensitive social issues.…”

Monkeys head-gaze following is fast, precise and not fully suppressible

“…Our results on monkeys' head-gaze following favour a comparable sequence of an uncontrollable early shift of attention that takes place no matter if demanded by the task or not and a later instruction contingent voluntary shift component. The balance between these components might vary with factors like facial expression [32], social status, social preferences [33][34][35] or mental states attributed to the sender [36]. Finally, we emphasize yet another close correspondence between human eye-gaze following and monkeys' head-gaze following, namely the fact that both allocate attention to distinct locations in the visual field, rather than redistributing resources between the two hemifields.…”