Incidental learning of group trust: Predictive gaze cue matters

Influences of eye gaze cues on memory and its mechanisms: The function and evolution of social attention

During evolution, humans have formed a priority perceptual preference for others’ gazes. The gaze direction of others is called the gaze cue, conveying environmental information, a critical non-verbal communication in early humans. Recently, empirical evidence has indicated that gaze cues can affect high-level cognitive processes, such as memory. Unlike non-social cues (e.g., arrows), gaze cues elicit special social attention. Research determining the underlying mechanisms suggests that social intention influences observers’ visual attention and influences their memory. This article provides a brief review of the current state of research on the relationship between gaze cues and memory. Future studies should focus on multiple gaze cues, the social nature of gaze cues, and clinical research.

The spatial distance compression effect is due to social interaction and not mere configuration

In recent years, there has been a surge of interest in perception, evaluation, and memory for social interactions from a third-person perspective. One intriguing finding is a spatial distance compression effect when target dyads are facing each other. Specifically, face-to-face dyads are remembered as being spatially closer than back-to-back dyads. There is a vibrant debate about the mechanism behind this effect, and two hypotheses have been proposed. According to the social interaction hypothesis, face-to-face dyads engage a binding process that represents them as a social unit, which compresses the perceived distance between them. In contrast, the configuration hypothesis holds that the effect is produced by the front-to-front configuration of the two visual targets. In the present research we sought to test these accounts. In Experiment 1 we successfully replicated the distance compression effect with two upright faces that were facing each other, but not with inverted faces. In contrast, we found no distance compression effect with three types of nonsocial stimuli: arrows (Experiment 2a), fans (Experiment 2b), and cars (Experiment 3). In Experiment 4, we replicated this effect with another social stimuli: upright bodies. Taken together, these results provide strong support for the social interaction hypothesis.

Person Perception, Meet People Perception: Exploring the Social Vision of Groups

Groups, teams, and collectives-people-are incredibly important to human behavior. People live in families, work in teams, and celebrate and mourn together in groups. Despite the huge variety of human group activity and its fundamental importance to human life, social-psychological research on person perception has overwhelmingly focused on its namesake, the person, rather than expanding to consider people perception. By looking to two unexpected partners, the vision sciences and organization behavior, we find emerging work that presents a path forward, building a foundation for understanding how people perceive other people. And yet this nascent field is missing critical insights that scholars of social vision might offer: specifically, for example, the chance to connect perception to behavior through the mediators of cognition and motivational processes. Here, we review emerging work across the vision and social sciences to extract core principles of people perception: efficiency, capacity, and complexity. We then consider complexity in more detail, focusing on how people perception modifies person-perception processes and enables the perception of group emergent properties as well as group dynamics. Finally, we use these principles to discuss findings and outline areas fruitful for future work. We hope that fellow scholars take up this people-perception call.

Standing out from the crowd: Both cue numerosity and social information affect attention in multi-agent contexts

Groups of people offer abundant opportunities for social interactions. We used a two-phase task to investigate how social cue numerosity and social information about an individual affected attentional allocation in such multi-agent settings. The learning phase was a standard gaze-cuing procedure in which a stimulus face could be either uninformative or informative about the upcoming target. The test phase was a group-cuing procedure in which the stimulus faces from the learning phase were presented in groups of three. The target could either be cued by the group minority (i.e., one face) or majority (i.e., two faces) or by uninformative or informative stimulus faces. Results showed an effect of cue numerosity, whereby responses were faster to targets cued by the group majority than the group minority. However, responses to targets cued by informative identities included in the group minority were as fast as responses to targets cued by the group majority. Thus, previously learned social information about an individual was able to offset the general enhancement of cue numerosity, revealing a complex interplay between cue numerosity and social information in guiding attention in multi-agent settings.