Are you attending to me? The effect of social presence on social attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior research has demonstrated that the presence of another person can modulate attention. For example, when participants are asked to complete a task in pairs, not only do participants show slower responses when they respond for the second time to the same target location (known as inhibition of return - IOR), but they also show slower responses to a target location that their partner just responded to. This so-called ‘social inhibition of return’ suggests that, at some level, we attend to the behaviours of another, which in turn modulates our responses. However, we wanted to know whether the allocation of attention towards a partner would change if, instead of attending to simple peripheral abrupt onsets, the pairs attended to a social gaze cue. Further, prior work has not manipulated the extent to which partners know each other before completing the task. Thus, in the current study we used a typical gaze cueing task, whereby pairs of participants saw faces looking left or right, and each participant was assigned to respond to either a target “T” or an “L” as soon as it appeared in the periphery. Familiarity was manipulated through asking participants to either complete a short semi-scripted conversation before beginning the computer task (Acquaintances; n=54) or afterwards (Strangers; n=52). Repeated-measures ANOVAs revealed different patterns of attention across the two groups. The Acquaintance group revealed an effect of previous responder, with robust social attention only when responding after oneself. In contrast, the Stranger group revealed a 3-way interaction; inhibition occurred during opposite-responder trials to the same spatial location, and facilitation was strongest during same-responder trials to the opposite spatial location. Together, our results indicate that social attention can be modulated based on a partner’s response, and furthermore that partner familiarity plays an important role in this attentional modulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".