Politics and Eye Movement: Liberals Process 'Gaze Cues' Much Differently Than Conseervatives

[Elmore Furth]

I've notices that conservatives don't seem to think like liberals but here is more evidence they process information fundamentally differently.

ScienceDaily (Dec. 9, 2010) — It goes without saying that conservatives and liberals don't see the world in the same way. Now, research from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln suggests that is exactly, and quite literally, the case.

In a new study, UNL researchers measured both liberals' and conservatives' reaction to "gaze cues" -- a person's tendency to shift attention in a direction consistent with another person's eye movements, even if it's irrelevant to their current task -- and found big differences between the two groups.

Liberals responded strongly to the prompts, consistently moving their attention in the direction suggested to them by a face on a computer screen. Conservatives, on the other hand, did not.

"We thought that political temperament may moderate the magnitude of gaze-cuing effects, but we did not expect conservatives to be completely immune to these cues," said Michael Dodd, a UNL assistant professor of psychology and the lead author of the study.


Politics and Eye Movement: Liberals Focus Their Attention on 'Gaze Cues' Much Differently Than Conservatives Do
>

[elias49]

1. Fascinating! Thanks nt

[Rincewind]

2. I saw a program about dogs,

researchers proved that dogs followed gaze cues. On the other hand, chimpanzees didn't follow gaze cues. Just sayin'.:evilgrin:

[housewolf]

3. This is VERY interensting

...

In addition to shedding light on the differences between the two political camps, researchers said the results add to growing indications that suggest biology plays a role determining one's political direction. Previous UNL research has delved into the physiology of political orientation, showing that those highly responsive to threatening images are likely to support defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism and the Iraq War.

Traditionally, political scientists have accounted for political differences purely in terms of environmental forces, but this study shows the potential role of cognitive biases -- wherever they may come from -- as a relevant area of future research.

"Getting things done in politics typically depends on competing viewpoints finding common ground," Smith said. "Our research is suggesting that's a lot tougher than it sounds, because the same piece of ground can look very different depending on which ideological hill you view it from."

...

[Timbuk3]

4. Could it then be said

...that conservatives are "rigidly focused"?

I mean, it does seem to be true that once their minds are made up, rightly or wrongly, they can't change them...

[applegrove]

5. Probably a lack of empathy and some deep seeded aggression towards others.

[txlibdem]

9. You're right. Conservatives are mentally ill. There is no other explanation.

And I agree 100%. We need to identify these individuals, take them to treatment facilities where their anti-social tendencies can be "cured" for good.

[Jim__]

6. Interesting, but it raises more questions than answers for me.

Were the only instructions to fixate on the black cross? If so, is this also a test on how people follow instructions even after the instructions become moot? If the movement of the eyes was unrelated to where the new object appeared, how does the time to see the new object correlate with gaze cues? If the described results are true, are these differences a cause of political outlook or a reflection of it?

[Igel]

8. Typically with eye-tracking plots you don't just look at the numbers.

You look at the plots showing where gaze is directed.

I've use eye-trackers. The instructions tend to be very simple. Usually fixate on a central point--a red dot, black cross, whatever. Sometimes there's an instruction to look at an object when it appears; more often the fixation point vanishes shortly before the subject's gaze is to be allowed to wander and track the subject's attention. Usually the software does a check for gaze: If the subject's gaze isn't on the fixation point when the recording starts then the trial's discarded. All subject's begin at the same point. What they do after that varies a lot. But it should vary randomly until the stimulus is presented, then the variation should rapidly diminish. Typically test runs are done to make sure that the screens prior to the presentation of the stimulus don't induce some sort of bias.

Then you average by condition, not over all trials.

There are four possibilities: The gaze cue points towards the object, subject follows gaze (predicted fast average time to acquisition of target); the gaze cue points from the object, subject follows gaze (predicted delayed average time to acquisition of target); no gaze cue, subject finds target independently (default/neutral average time to acquisition of target); gaze cue ignored, subject finds target independently (default/neutral average time to acquisition of target). Because the screen is neutral, those who randomly let their gaze wander after the fixation point vanishes are as likely to have it wander away from as towards where the target will appear.

You'd probably expect the last two to show similar acquisition times, but you'd keep them separate just in case: Perhaps those who ignore gaze cues are just slower to respond to the stimuli. The researchers seem to be saying there is no difference. The first two should show highly divergent acquisition times, clearly separated from the third and fourth. The eyetrackers we used, IIRC, resolved to 3.33 msec.

I don't know that they're addressing cause/effect. Just correlation, with speculation. The thing is, this kind of study is risky. Conservative/liberal isn't a clear-cut, binary opposition unless they did a survey and weeded out all but those at the extremes; if they did that, they may have introduced other factors into the subject pool.

How you read the results depends on what you want to read. Take responsiveness to gaze cues. Upstream a poster pointed out that it likely reflect empathy. (Perhaps, perhaps not. Empathy and response to gaze cues are clearly related but aren't the same thing.) Solidarity, an assumption of like interests, lots of other things could be assumed. "Empathy" is a current buzz-word. On the other hand, gaze cues can easily be used to redirect a person's attention, and if it happens outside of the person's control the word is "gullible." Alternatively, over-valuing others' opinions, dependence, wanting to be part of the herd, and many other negative traits could also be adduced. Similarly, a set of positive and negative traits for lack of responsiveness are possible. (Odds are that it's mixed; purely negative traits would most likely be weeded out of the gene pool, so both have been found useful for the species' survival and success.)

[w4rma]

7. Curiosity. (nt)