Literature DB >> 25775604

Biasing moral decisions by exploiting the dynamics of eye gaze.

Philip Pärnamets1, Petter Johansson2, Lars Hall3, Christian Balkenius3, Michael J Spivey4, Daniel C Richardson5.   

Abstract

Eye gaze is a window onto cognitive processing in tasks such as spatial memory, linguistic processing, and decision making. We present evidence that information derived from eye gaze can be used to change the course of individuals' decisions, even when they are reasoning about high-level, moral issues. Previous studies have shown that when an experimenter actively controls what an individual sees the experimenter can affect simple decisions with alternatives of almost equal valence. Here we show that if an experimenter passively knows when individuals move their eyes the experimenter can change complex moral decisions. This causal effect is achieved by simply adjusting the timing of the decisions. We monitored participants' eye movements during a two-alternative forced-choice task with moral questions. One option was randomly predetermined as a target. At the moment participants had fixated the target option for a set amount of time we terminated their deliberation and prompted them to choose between the two alternatives. Although participants were unaware of this gaze-contingent manipulation, their choices were systematically biased toward the target option. We conclude that even abstract moral cognition is partly constituted by interactions with the immediate environment and is likely supported by gaze-dependent decision processes. By tracking the interplay between individuals, their sensorimotor systems, and the environment, we can influence the outcome of a decision without directly manipulating the content of the information available to them.

Entities:  

Keywords:  decision making; dynamical systems; eye tracking; morality; visual attention

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25775604      PMCID: PMC4386374          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1415250112

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  46 in total

Review 1.  Making decisions through a distributed consensus.

Authors:  Paul Cisek
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 6.627

2.  Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice.

Authors:  Ian Krajbich; Carrie Armel; Antonio Rangel
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2010-09-12       Impact factor: 24.884

3.  Neural correlates of reaching decisions in dorsal premotor cortex: specification of multiple direction choices and final selection of action.

Authors:  Paul Cisek; John F Kalaska
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2005-03-03       Impact factor: 17.173

4.  A recurrent network mechanism of time integration in perceptual decisions.

Authors:  Kong-Fatt Wong; Xiao-Jing Wang
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2006-01-25       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 5.  The diffusion decision model: theory and data for two-choice decision tasks.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Gail McKoon
Journal:  Neural Comput       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.026

Review 6.  Exploring the neurophysiology of decisions.

Authors:  M I Leon; M N Shadlen
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 17.173

Review 7.  Where in the brain is morality? Everywhere and maybe nowhere.

Authors:  Liane Young; James Dungan
Journal:  Soc Neurosci       Date:  2011-06-12       Impact factor: 2.083

8.  Listen to your heart: when false somatic feedback shapes moral behavior.

Authors:  Jun Gu; Chen-Bo Zhong; Elizabeth Page-Gould
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2012-08-13

9.  How choice ecology influences search in decisions from experience.

Authors:  Tomás Lejarraga; Ralph Hertwig; Cleotilde Gonzalez
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2012-07-02

10.  Moving eyes and moving thought: on the spatial compatibility between eye movements and cognition.

Authors:  Laura E Thomas; Alejandro Lleras
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2007-08
View more
  20 in total

1.  Mental representations distinguish value-based decisions from perceptual decisions.

Authors:  Stephanie M Smith; Ian Krajbich
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2021-04-05

2.  Gaze-dependent evidence accumulation predicts multi-alternative risky choice behaviour.

Authors:  Felix Molter; Armin W Thomas; Scott A Huettel; Hauke R Heekeren; Peter N C Mohr
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 4.779

3.  Amount and time exert independent influences on intertemporal choice.

Authors:  Dianna R Amasino; Nicolette J Sullivan; Rachel E Kranton; Scott A Huettel
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2019-02-25

4.  Decision-Making in the Human-Machine Interface.

Authors:  J Benjamin Falandays; Samuel Spevack; Philip Pärnamets; Michael Spivey
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-02-11

5.  How Oxytocin Receptor (OXTR) Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms Act on Prosociality: The Mediation Role of Moral Evaluation.

Authors:  Siyuan Shang; Nan Wu; Yanjie Su
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-03-21

6.  Prior expectations about where other people are likely to direct their attention systematically influence gaze perception.

Authors:  Peter C Pantelis; Daniel P Kennedy
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 2.240

7.  The Attentional Drift Diffusion Model of Simple Perceptual Decision-Making.

Authors:  Gabriela Tavares; Pietro Perona; Antonio Rangel
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2017-08-24       Impact factor: 4.677

8.  Behavioral Priming 2.0: Enter a Dynamical Systems Perspective.

Authors:  Dario Krpan
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-07-18

Review 9.  Structural and Functional Brain Mapping Correlates of Impaired Eye Movement Control in Parkinsonian Syndromes: A Systems-Based Concept.

Authors:  Martin Gorges; Hans-Peter Müller; Jan Kassubek
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2018-05-07       Impact factor: 4.003

10.  Visual encoding of social cues predicts sociomoral reasoning.

Authors:  Mathieu Garon; Marie Maxime Lavallée; Evelyn Vera Estay; Miriam H Beauchamp
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-25       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.