BEHAVIOR IN THE PROCESS OF COMMUNICATION DIAGNOSTICS I.

VISUAL INTERACTION UNDER OBSERVATION OF TRAINING OBSERVERS

VYACHESLAV I. MYASNIKOV, BOEIS A. POPOV AND FELIZ N. USKOV

Instiiule of Biomedical Probtems, USSR Ministry of HeaUh, Moscow, USSR

JAAN VAL8INEH

Tartu State University, USSR Kxploved the possibility of training an observer to detennine gaze direction toward specific points and areas offixation.In the experiments, 20 Ss worked with videotapes that showed two situations similar to a real dyadic interaction. Certain patterns were found by means of a bifactorial analysis of variance for qualitar parameters. It was shown that accuracy of evaluations can be increased due to training. The importance of training was demonstrated in situations similar to real ones.

Visual interaction in the process of communication interests equally investigators who represent different branches of knowledge. The way interactants look at each other while they are conversing, final arrangement of eye contact, i. e., time of gaze fixation, frequency of fixation and other parameters (Valsiner, 1976; Von Cranach & EUgring, 1973), are widely used in studies of the interpersonal intimacy equilibrium (Aiello, 1972, 1973, 1976; Argyle & Dean, 1965; Patterson, 1973, 1976), interpersonal attitudes (Breed & Porter, 1972; Kleinke, Meeker, & LaFong, 1974; Kleinke, Staneski, & Berger, 1975; Kleinke, Staneski, & Pipp, 1975), and social behavior of schizophrenic patients (Rutter, 1973; Rutter & Stephenson, 1972; Williams, 1974). Of crucial importance for any study that deals with visual interaction is how to measure this parameter. It has been shown experimentally (Stephenson & Rutter, 1970) that the intimacy equilibrium theory of Argyle and Dean has certain disadvantages because the accuracy with which the observer records the gaze direction is a function of the distance. Errors made by the observer may have other causes as well (Vine, 1971; Von Cranach & EUgring, 1973). Little has been done to develop automatic methods of evaluation of visual interaction. The accuracy of evaluations made by an observed is influenced by a number of factors: an angle between the axis of eye-contacts of partners and that of the observer and the observed (Kruger & Huckstedt, 1969), the position of the head of the observer (Anstis, Mayhew, & Morley, 1969; Gibson & Pick, 1963; Von Cranach & EUgring, 1973), and eye movements (Von Cranach & EUgrin^g, 1973). There are no grounds to believe that observers usually refer to the position of the pupil in the visible part of the eye (Anstis et al., 1969). The present investigation was carried out to resolve the foUowing questions: (1) Is it possible to train the observer on how to evaluate gaze direction; and (2) What, if any, is the pattern of the observer's evaluations? The purpose of this investigation was to develop adequate procedures and to train observers to work with visual interaction as a communication parameter.
METHOD

Subjects Twenty healthy male volunteers, college graduates, aged 22-37, were the Ss. They were divided into two subgroups of 10 5s each: (1) experimental and (2) control subgroups. The experimental subgroup performed training and then tests, whereas the control subgroup carried out tests without pretraining.
946

Behavior in the Process of Communication Procedure

947

The experimental test Ss were trained by use of a videotape that displayed the observer's gaze at given points of fixation situated horizontally at a 10 interval from -H60 to 60 relative to the arbitrary zero. The videotape showed 13 gaze fixations, including zero, i. e., the fixation point situated just in front of the eyes. The points of fixation were light spots of 5 mm in diameter that formed a circular arc. The videotape was prepared with the observer's head fixed in the center of the circumference. Figure 1 shows the preparation of videotapes for training sessions. At the first stage the test Ss worked 10 seconds with each of the 13 gaze images; if necessary, they could get instructions from the E. At the second stage the test iSs had to work without any help. Gaze images that were to be quantitated accurately in degrees of the corresponding fixation points were displayed at random.

FIO. 1. Preparation of videotapes for training sessluus.

During tests both subgroups worked with the videotapes that contained recordings of 13 gaze positions that may occur in real situations of dyadic interaction. The time interval between the last training session and the first test was 10 days.

FIG. 2. Preparation of videotapes for more natural experimental condition.

948

Journal of Clinical Psychology, October, 1878, Vol. 34, No. 4.

The chosen gaze positions corresponded to the following areas of fixation: forehead, eyes, nose, chin, left ear, right ear, chest, stomach, left shoulder, right shoulder, 20 cm.to the left from the left shoulder, 20 cm to the right from the right shoulder, 20 cm over the head of the partner. Figure 2 shows the preparation of videotapes for tests. The tests were repeated three times; the last test was final. The performance of test Ss from both subgroups was evaluated on the basis of the time that they spent on each gaze image, of the value (pattern in tests), and number of errors. The videotapes that were used in the experiment were prepared by means of the TV-camera Vzor (22 cm. focal distance) and the videotape recorder Lome The playback was displayed on the screen of 23 cm. in diagonal. When the test 5s were working with videotapes, they remained at a distance of 100 cm. from the screen.
RESULTS

Latent time of responses and errors of evaluations were analyzed. An analysis of the response time gave no interesting results and, therefore, the data presented here refer to the errors of evaluation. The results were processed by bifactorial analysis of variance for qualitative parameters. The computer program for a 15 BCM5 computer was developed, and the analysis was performed by one of the authors (J.V.). The progrsim was based on Lakin's (1971) formula. The following factors taken in pairs were analyzed statistically: 1. Vector of error (deviation toward the center or periphery from the actual point of fixation) and left-right visual field (Table 1). As can be seen, only the factor vector of error was highly significant (F = 48.3; Fp = 7.88 at p < .005 with d/ = 1/ " ) It is interesting to note that the percentage of errors toward the center (arbitrary zero) was significantly higher than that toward periphery (31% and 12.9%, respectively). This trend was symmetrical because the effect of the factor left-right visual fields was insignificant (left field: errors toward the center amounted to 34%, and toward periphery - 11.3%; right field: errors toward the center amounted to 27.9%, and toward periphery - 14.6%. F = .31, Fp = 2.84 at p < .05 df = 1/"). Interaction of these factors did not infiuence the results significantly. TABLE 1
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OP TWO FACTORS: VECTOR or ERUOR (A) AND LEFT-BIGHT VISUAL FIELD ( B )

Source

df
1 1 1 956

F
48.3
.31

A B
AXB Total

.005
.05

3.37

2. Factors actual point of fixation and vector of error (Table 2). Figure 3 illustrates the percentage of errors toward the center and periphery for different points of fixation. It can be seen that the general trend was to make errors toward the center except for the point of fixation at 30. It is not easy to explain the tendency to make errors toward periphery from the point of fixation at 30 . It is very likely that intercepts of curves and lack of vector errors toward periphery for the point of fixation of 60 indicate a combined effect of both factors.

Behavior in the Process of Communication

949

1"'

Flo. 3. Percentage of periphery-directed and center-directed errors at 6 fixation points. TABLE 2

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TWO FACTORS: ACTUAL POINT OF FIXATION (A) AND VECTOR OF ERROR ( B )

Source A B AXB Error Total

df
5 1 5 948 959

F 1.58 54.02 10.95

.005 .00.5

3. Factors actual point of fixation and value of error (Table 3). As can be seen, both factors are effective; the contribution of the value of error factor is more distinct. In Table 4, the evaluations by the test iSs differed from the actual point of fixation by 10 in 36.3% and by 20 in 4.2% cases. The effect of the first factor TABLE 3
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TWO FACTORS: ACTUAL POINT OF FIXATION (A) AND VALTJE OF ERROR ( B )

Source A B AXB Error Total

df
6 1 6 1026 1039

F 5.08 158.2 4.13

P .005 .005 .005

was less expressed due to the specific position of zero degree in the sequence of fixation points. As a matter of fact, the gaze fixed at zero point differs clearly from any other gaze direction. The accuracy of evaluation for 10 through 60 fixation points is similar. This finding cannot be interpreted readily.

950

Journal of Clinical Psychology, October, 1978, Vol. 84, No. 4.

TABLE 4
PERCENTAGES OF EBBOHS OF 10 AND 20 DEGBEES

Point of fixation 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
X

Error value of 20 2.5 1,25 3,8 ,0 6,3 2,6 12,5 4,2 10 52.5 28.8 36.2 38,8 45 40 36.3

4. Factors actual point of gaze fixation and left-right visual field (Table 5), It can be seen that both factors interacted significantly (p < .05), although the effect of the visual field factor was low. As follows from Figure 4, fixation points of

-t-

ir*^
FIXATION POIHTa

Tl-

FiQ. 4. Percentage of errors at vanous fixation points in relation to the left or right visualfieldfrom the center,

the gaze at 10, 20 and 30 are evaluated with an error to the left from zero whereas fixation points at 40, 50, and 60 with an error to the right from zero. These opposite trends seem to neutralize one another and finally eliminate the left-right visual field factor. TABLE 5
ANALTBIS OF VARIANCE OP TWO FACTORS: ACTUAL POINT OP FIXATION (A) AND LEFT-RIGHT VISUAL FIELD ( B )

Source A B AXB Error Total

df
5 1 5 468, 479

F
2,37 ,43 2,87

P ,05 ,05

Behavior in the Process of Communication

951

5. The role of training as a tool to increase accuracy of evaluations was investigated. As shown in Table 6, the subgroup factor had a significant but minor effect on the accuracy of evaluations: the experimental subgroup made 41.8% and the control one 49.2% errors {p < .05). The subgroup factor was studied together with the training factor. The effect of the latter showed greater significance. The number of errors made during training decreased from session to session: I session 52%, II - 46.9%, III - 37% (sum total for both groups). It is important to note that there was no interaction between the two factors. TABLE 6
ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OF TWO FACTOKS: TKAINING SESSION (A) AND EXPERIMENTAL/CONTROL STJBGROVP ( B )

Source A B A X B Error Total

df
2 1 2 774 779

F 6.14 4.41 .48

P .005 .0.5

6. Factors left-right visual field and subgroup (Table 7). The first factor proved most effective (p < .05). The number of errors for the fixation points situated to the left was greater (17.5%) than that for the points located to the right (12.3%). The second factor or the combination of both factors did not produce a significant effect on the accuracy of evaluations. TABLE 7
ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OF TWO FACTORS: LEPT.'RIGHT VISUAL FIELD (A) AND EXPERIMENTAL/CONTROL SUBGROUP ( B )

Source A B A XB Error Total

df 1 1 1 1196 1199 DISCUSSION

p .0.5

6.32
.53 .16

The data accumulated are in agreement with previously published observations. It has been shown that errors in evaluations of actual points of gaze fixation tend to shift toward the center and value of error is not, as a rule, more than 10. Of particular interest are the results obtained in test situations. The number of errors made by the controls, i. e., the test iS who had no pretraining, was higher than that made by the experimental subgroup. At the same time, both subgroups showed a decrease in the number of erroneous evaluations from test to test. It can be assumed that it is inadequate to train a person in a situation that differs from a natural one. The training is much more helpful if the S is allowed to work in an artificial situation and then in a natural (or approximately natural) one. The data presented in Table 5 and Figure 4 in regard to the combined effect of the factors left-right visual field and actual point of gaze fixation on the evaluations cannot be interpreted readily. It should be emphasized that during tests the number of errors in the left

952

Journal of Clinical Psychology, October, 1978, Vol. 34, No. 4.

visual field is greater than that in the right field (Table 7). It is very likely that this can be attributed to better observation conditions (eyes and pupils are better discerned) due to the location of the axis of communication and the axis of TV camera. In conclusion, it should be stressed that visual interaction is 'an important parameter of human contacts and one that needs further study. It is essential to solve methodical problems that rarely are discussed in the pertinent literature (Valsiner, 1976). As a rule, experiments are carried out under laboratory conditions that differ greatly from real situations of dyadic interaction. As follows from our tests, the work in near-real situations is very useful. It appears that any new situation and any new training session reinforce a model of an accurate evaluation developed by the test S. Our observations suggest that the model, at least in its accuracy aspect, is uniform for different situations. Our findings can be used in the development of expertise procedures or protocols of training observers responsible for the control over visual interaction in real situations.
REFEEENCES LO, J. R. A test of equilibrium theory: visual interaction in relation to orientation, dist-ance and sex of interactants. Psychonomic Science, 1972, B7, 335-336. AiELLO, J. R. Gaie direction during interaction. Paper presented at Eastern Psychological Association Convention, 1973. AiELLO, J. R. Visual interaction at extended distances. Personality and Social Psychology BvUetin, 1976, in press. ANSTIS, S. M . , MAYHEW, J. W., & MORLEY, T . The perception of where a face or television"portrait" is looking. American Journal of Psychology, 1969, 8IS, 474-489. AKGYLE, M . , & DEAN, J. Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sodometry, 1965, Z8, 289-394. BHEED, G . , & PORTER, J. Eye-contact, attitudes and attitude change among males. Journal nf Genetic Psychology, 1972, lW, 211-217. GIBSON, J. J., & PICK, A. D. Perception of another person's looking behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 1963, 76, 386-394. KLEINKE, C . L., MEEKER, F . B., & LAFONO, C . Effects of gaze, touch and use of name on evaluation of "engaged" couples. Journal of Research in Personality, 1974, 7, 368-373.
KLEINKE, C . L . , STANESKI, R . A., & BERGER, D . E . Evaluation of an interviewer as a function of

interviewer gaze, reinJforcement of subject gaze and interviewer attractivenras. Jownal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, SI, 115-122. KLEINKE, C , STANESKI, R . A., & PIPP, S. L . Effects of gaze, distance, and attractiveness on males' first impressions of females. Representative Research in Social Psyi^logy, 1975, 6, 7-12. KRUOER, K . , & HucKSTEDT, B. Die Buerteliung von Blickrichtugen. Zeitschrift fur ExperimeMie und Arygewandte Psychologie, 1969, IS, 452-472. LAKIN, I. Biometry. Moscow: Institute of Biomedical Problems, 1971 (in Russian). PATTERSON, M . L . Compensation in nonverbal immediacy behaviors: A review. Sodometry, 1973, 36, 237-252. PATTERSON, M . L . An arqusal model of interpersonal intimacy. Psychological Review, 1976, 8S, 235-245. RuTTEK, D. R. Visual interaction in psychiatric patients: a review. British Journal of PsychitUry, 1973, ISS, 193-202. RuTTER, D. R.i & STEPHENSON, G . M . Visual interaction in a group of schizophrenic and depressive patients. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1972, 11, 57-65. STEPHENSON, G . M . , & RUTTER, D . R . Eye contact, distance and affiliation: A re-evaluation. British Jcmmal of Psydtology, 1970, 61, 385-393. VALSINES, J . Research on visual interaction: Methodological considerations. Taju ja suhtlemine, Tartu, 1976, 50-58. VINE, I. Judgment of direction of gaze: An interpretation of discrepant results. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1971, 10, 320-331. VON CRANACH, M . , & ELLORING, J. Problems in the recognition of gaze direction. In M. von Cranach & I. Vine (Eds.), Social communication and movement. New York: Academic IVess, 1973,419-i45. j s , E. An analysis of gaze in schizophrenics, British Journal ofSodal and Clinical PsycMogy, 1974, IS, 1-8.