7/30/2019 1978,.Valsiner, Visual Interaccion

1/8

BEHAVIOR IN THE PROCESS OF COMMUNICATIONDIAGNOSTICS I . VISUAL INTERACTION UNDEROBSERVATION OF TR AIN ING OBSERVERSVYACHESLAV I . MYASNIKOV, BOEIS A. POPOV AND FELIZ N. USKOV

Instiiule of Biomedical Probtems, USSR Ministry of HeaU h, Moscow, USSRJ A A N V A L 8 I N E HTartu State University, USSR

Kxploved the possibility of training an observer to detennine gaze directiontoward specific points and areas offixation.In the experiments, 20 Ss workedwith videotapes that showed two situations similar to a real dyadic inter-action. Certain patterns were found by means of a bifactorial analysis ofvariance for qualitar parameters. It was shown that accuracy of evaluationscan be increased due to training. The importance of training was demon-strated in situations similar to real ones.Visual interaction in the process of communication interests equally invetigators who represent different branches of knowledge. The way interactants looat each other while they are conversing, final arrangement of eye contact, i. time of gaze fixation, frequency of fixation and other parameters (Valsiner, 197Von Cranach & EUgring, 1973), are widely used in stud ies of the interpersonintimacy equilibrium (Aiello, 1972, 1973, 1976; Argyle & Dean, 1965; Patterso1973, 1976), interpersonal attitu de s (Breed & Po rter, 1972; Kleinke, Meeker,LaFong, 1974; K leinke, Staneski, & Berger, 1975; Kleinke, Stanesk i, & Pipp , 197and social behavior of schizophrenic pa tien ts (R utter , 1973; R ut te r & Stephenso

1972; Williams, 1974).Of crucial importan ce for a ny s tud y th a t deals w ith visual interac tion is hoto m easure this p aram eter. I t has been shown experimentally (Stephenson Rutter, 1970) that the intimacy equilibrium theory of Argyle and Dean has certadisadvantages because the accuracy with which the observer records the gadirection is a function of the distance. Errors made by the observer may have othcauses as well (V ine, 1971 ; Von Cra nach & EUgring, 1973). Lit tle has been doto develop automatic methods of evaluation of visual interaction.The accuracy of evaluations made by an observed is influenced by a number factors: an angle between the axis of eye-contacts of partners and that of the oserver a nd the observed (Kruger & H uck sted t, 1969), the position of the head the observer (Anstis, Mayhew, & Morley, 1969; Gibson & Pick, 1963; Von Cran& EUgring, 1973), and eye movements (Von Cranach & EUgrin^g, 1973). Theare no grounds to believe that observers usually refer to the position of the pupin the visible part of the eye (Anstis et al., 1969).The present investigation was carried out to resolve the foUowing question(1) Is it possible to train the observer on how to evaluate gaze direction; and (What, if any, is the pattern of the observer's evaluations?The purpose of this investigation was to develop adequate procedures and train observers to work with visual interaction as a communication paramet

METHOD

7/30/2019 1978,.Valsiner, Visual Interaccion

2/8

Behavior in the Process of Com munication 947

The experimental test Ss were trained by use of a videotape that displayedom -H60 to 60 relative to the arbit ra ry zero. The videotape showed 13 gazeincluding zero, i. e., the fixation point situa ted ju st in front of th e eyes.

f fixation were light spots of 5 mm in d iameter t ha t formed a circularThe videotape was prepared with the observer's head fixed in the center of theSs worked 10 seconds with each of the 13 gaze images;E. At the second stage the tests had to work withou t any help. Gaze images tha t were to be quan titated accurately

FIO. 1. Preparation of videotapes for training sessluus.During tests both subgroups worked with the videotapes that contained re-ordings of 13 gaze positions that may occur in real situations of dyadic interaction.he time interval between the last training session and the first test was 10 days.

7/30/2019 1978,.Valsiner, Visual Interaccion

3/8

948 Journal of Clinical Psychology, October, 1878, Vol. 34, No. 4.The chosen gaze positions corresponded to the following areas of fixation: foreheaeyes, nose, chin, left ear, right ear, chest, stomach, left shoulder, right should20 cm.to the left from the left shoulder, 20 cm to the right from the right shoulde20 cm over the head of the partner. Figure 2 shows the preparation of videotapfor tests. The tests were repeated three times; the last test was final.The performance of test Ss from both subgroups was evaluated on the basof the time that they spent on each gaze image, of the value (pattern in testsand number of errors.T he videotapes t h at were used in the experiment were prepared by means of tTV -camera Vzor (22 cm. focal distance) and th e videotape recorder Lo m e Tplayback was displayed on the screen of 23 cm. in diagonal. When the test 5s weworking with videotapes, they remained at a distance of 100 cm. from the scree

RESULTSLatent time of responses and errors of evaluations were analyzed. An analys

of the response time gave no interesting results and, therefore, the data presentehere refer to the errors of evaluation.The results were processed by bifactorial analysis of variance for qualitativparameters. The computer program for a 15 BCM5 computer was developed, anthe analysis was performed by one of the authors (J.V.). The progrsim was baseon 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 actuapo int of fixation) and left-righ t visua l field (Table 1). As can be seen, only the factovector 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 (arbitrarzero) was significantly higher th an t ha t toward periphe ry (3 1 % and 12.9% , respetively). This trend was symmetrical because the effect of the factor left-right visuafields was insignificant (left field: errors tow ard the center am oun ted to 34% , antoward 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 1A N A LY S IS O F V A RIA N CE O P TW O F A CT O RS : V ECTO R o r

ERU O R (A ) AND L EF T-B IG H T V IS U A L F IE LD ( B )

SourceAB

A X BTota l

df111

956

F48.3

.313.37

P.005.0 5

7/30/2019 1978,.Valsiner, Visual Interaccion

4/8

Behavior in the Process of Com munication 94

1"'

Flo. 3. Perce ntage of periphery-directed a nd center-directed errors at 6 fixation points.T A B L E 2

A N A LY S IS O F V A RIA N CE O F TWO F A CTO RS : A CTU A L P O IN TOF F IX A TIO N (A ) A ND V ECTO R O F ERR O R ( B )

SourceAB

A X BErrorTota l

df515

94895 9

F1.58

54.0210.95

P

.005

.00.5

3. Factors actual point of fixation and value of error (Table 3). As can bseen, both factors are effective; the contribution of the value of error factor is mordistinct. In Tab le 4, th e evaluations by the te st iSs differed from th e actu al po inof fixation by 10 in 36.3% and by 20 in 4.2% cases. The effect of the first factoTABLE 3

A N A LY S IS O F V A RIA N CE O F TWO F A CTO RS : A CTU A L P O IN TOF FIXA TION (A) AND VALTJE OF ER RO R ( B )Source

AB

A X BError

df6161026

F5.08

158.24 .1 3

P.005.005.005

7/30/2019 1978,.Valsiner, Visual Interaccion

5/8

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

PERCENTAGES OF EBBOHS OF 10 AND 20 DE GB EESPoint of fixation

0 102030405060

X

101052.528.836.238,8454036.3

Error value of 202 .51,253 ,8

,06 ,32 ,6

12,54 ,2

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

Tl--t - rFIXATION POIHTa

FiQ. 4. Percentage of errors at vanous fixation points in relation to the left or right visualfieldfroth e center,th e gaze at 10, 20 and 30 are evaluated with an error to th e left from zero wherefixation po ints a t 40, 50, and 60 w ith a n error t o the right from zero. These oppostrends seem to neutralize one another and finally eliminate the left-right visufield factor.

TABLE 5ANALTBIS OF VARIANCE OP TW O FACTORS: ACTUAL POIN TOP FIXATION (A) AND LEFT-RIGHT VISUAL FIELD ( B )

Source df F P

7/30/2019 1978,.Valsiner, Visual Interaccion

6/8

Behavior in the Process of Communication 955. The role of training as a tool to increase accuracy of evaluations wasinvestigated. As shown in Table 6, the subgroup factor had a significant but minoreffect on the accuracy of evaluations: the experimental subgroup made 41.8% andthe control one 49.2% errors {p < .05). The subgroup factor was studied togetherwith 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%, I I - 46.9%, I I I - 3 7 % (sum total for both groups). I t is imp ortant to no te th atthere was no interaction between the two factors.TABLE 6

A N A LY S IS O P V A RIA N CE O F TW O F A C TO K S : TK A IN IN GS ES S IO N (A ) A ND EX P E RIM E N TA L/CO N TRO L S TJ BG ROV P (B )Source

ABA X B

ErrorTota l

df212

77477 9

F6.144 .41.48

P.005.0.5

6. Factors left-right visual field an d subgroup (Table 7). The first factor provedmost effective (p < .05). The number of errors for the fixation points situated tothe 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 significanteffect on the accuracy of evaluations.TABLE 7A N A LY S IS O P V A RIA N CE O F TW O F A CTO RS : LEP T. 'RIG H T V IS U A LF I E L D (A ) A ND E X P E R I M E N T A L / C O N T R O L S UB G R O U P ( B )

Source df F p.0.5

BA X BErrorTo ta l

1111196

1199

DISCUSSION

6.32.53.16

The data accumulated are in agreement with previously published observa-tions. It has been shown that errors in evaluations of actual points of gaze fixationtend to shift toward the center and value of error is not, as a rule, more than 10Of particular interes t are the results obtained in tes t situations. Th e num ber oferrors made by the controls, i. e., the test iS who had no pretraining, was higher tha nthat made by the experimental subgroup. At the same time, both subgroups showed

7/30/2019 1978,.Valsiner, Visual Interaccion

7/8

952 Journal of Clinical P sychology, October, 1978, Vo l. 34, No. 4.visual field is greater than that in the right field (Table 7). It is very likely ththis can be attributed to better observation conditions (eyes and pupils are bettdiscerned) due to the location of the axis of communication and the axis of Tcamera.In conclusion, it should be stressed that visual interaction is 'an importaparameter of human contacts and one that needs further study. It is essential tsolve methodical problems that rarely are discussed in the pertinent literatu(Valsiner, 1976).As a rule, experiments are carried out under laboratory conditions that diffegreatly from real situations of dyadic interaction. As follows from our tests, thwork in near-real situations is very useful. It appears that any new situation anany new training session reinforce a model of an accurate evaluation developed bthe test S. Our observations suggest that the model, at least in its accuracy aspecis 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 resituations.

REFEEENCESLO, J. R. A test of equilibrium theory: visual interaction in relation to orientation, dist-anand sex of in teractants. Psychonomic Science, 1972, B7, 335-336.AiELLO, J. R. Gaie direction during interaction. Paper presented at Eastern Psychological Assocition Convention, 1973.AiELLO, J. R. Visual interaction at extended distances. Personality and Social Psychology BvUet1976, in press.

ANSTIS, S . M . , MAYHEW, J. W., & MORLEY, T . T he perception of where a face or television"portraiis 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 Genetic Psychology, 1972, lW, 211-217.GIBSON, J. J., & PICK, A. D. Perception of another person's looking behavior. American JournalPsychology, 1963, 76, 386-394.KLEINKE, C . L . , MEEKER, F . B . , & LAFONO, C . Effects of gaze, touch and use of name on evaluatioof "engaged" couples. Journal of Research in Personality, 1974, 7, 368-373.K LEI N K E, C. L., STANESKI, R. A., & BERGER, D . E . Evaluation of an interviewer as a functioninterviewer gaze, reinJforcement of subject gaze and interviewer attractivenras. Jownal Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, SI, 115-122.KLEINKE, C , STANESKI, R . A., & PIPP, S . L . Effects of gaze, distance, and attractiveness on malfirst impressions of females. Representative Research in Social Psyi^logy, 1975, 6, 7-12.KRUOER, K . , & HucKSTEDT, B. Die Buerteliung von Blickrichtugen. Zeitschrift fur ExperimeMund Arygewandte Psychologie, 1969, IS, 452-472.

LAKIN, I. Biometry. Moscow: Inst i tu te of Biomedical Problems, 1971 (in Russian) .PATTERSON, M. L. Compensation in nonverbal immediacy behaviors: A review. Sodometry, 19736, 237-252.PATTERSON, M . L . An arqusal model of interpersonal intimacy. Psychological Review, 1976,235-245.RuTTEK, D. R. Visual interaction in psychiatr ic pat ients: a review. British Journal of PsychitU1973, ISS, 193-202.RuTTER, D. R.i & STEPHENSON, G . M . V isual in teract ion in a group of schizophrenic and depressipa t ien ts . British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1972, 11, 57-65.STEPHENSON, G . M . , RUTTER, D . R . Eye contact , d istance Brit

7/30/2019 1978,.Valsiner, Visual Interaccion

8/8