Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference

Nature Neuroscience volume 6, pages 1317–1322 (2003)Cite this article

Abstract

Emotions operate along the dimension of approach and aversion, and it is reasonable to assume that orienting behavior is intrinsically linked to emotionally involved processes such as preference decisions. Here we describe a gaze 'cascade effect' that was present when human observers were shown pairs of human faces and instructed to decide which face was more attractive. Their gaze was initially distributed evenly between the two stimuli, but then gradually shifted toward the face that they eventually chose. Gaze bias was significantly weaker in a face shape discrimination task. In a second series of experiments, manipulation of gaze duration, but not exposure duration alone, biased observers' preference decisions. We thus conclude that gaze is actively involved in preference formation. The gaze cascade effect was also present when participants compared abstract, unfamiliar shapes for attractiveness, suggesting that orienting and preference for objects in general are intrinsically linked in a positive feedback loop leading to the conscious choice.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Results of Experiment 1.
Figure 2: Results of Experiment 1, two-session condition.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Leopold, D.A., O'Toole, A.J., Vetter, T. & Blanz, V. Prototype-referenced shape encoding revealed by high-level aftereffects. Nat. Neurosci. 1, 3–5 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mandler, G., Nakamura, Y. & Van Zandt, B. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 13, 646–648 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Zajonc, R.B. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Monogr. Suppl. 9, 1–27 (1968).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kunst-Wilson, W.R. & Zajonc, R.B. Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science 207, 557–558 (1980).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kleinke, C.L. Gaze and eye contact: a research review. Psychol. Bull. 100, 78–100 (1986).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Emery, N.J. The eyes have it: the neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 24, 581–604 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fantz, R.L. The origin of form perception. Sci. Am. 204, 66–72 (1961).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Birch, E.E., Shimojo, S. & Held, R. Preferential looking assessment of fusion and stereopsis in infants aged 1 to 6 months. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 26, 366–370 (1985).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Butterworth, G. & Jarret, N. What minds have in common is space – spatial mechanisms serving joint visual-attention in infancy. Br. J. Devel. Psychol. 9, 55–72 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. VonGrunau, M. & Anston, C. The detection of gaze direction: a stare-in-the-crowd effect. Perception 24, 1297–1313 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Nakamura, K. et al. Neuroanatomical correlates of the assessment of facial attractiveness. Neuroreport 9, 753–757 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sakai, K. & Miyashita, Y. Neural organization for the long-term memory of paired associates. Nature 354, 152–155 (1991).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Vessel, E.A. & Biederman, I. An fMRI investigation of visual preference habituation. J. Vis. 2, 492 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. James, W. What is an emotion? Mind 4, 188–204 (1884).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tomkins, S. Affect, imagery and consciousness Vol. 1: the positive effects (Springer, New York, 1962).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Schacter, S. The interaction of cognitive and physiological determinants of emotional states in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 1 (ed., Berkowitz, L.) 49–80 (Academic Press, New York, 1964).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Zajonc, R.B. Emotion and facial efference: a theory reclaimed. Science 228, 15–21 (1985).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Laird, J.D. Self-attribution of emotion: the effects of expressive behavior on the quality of emotional experience. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 29, 475–486 (1974).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Patterson, M.L. A sequential functional model of nonverbal exchange. Psychol. Rev. 89, 231–249 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank K. Sakai for the Fourier descriptor algorithm, B. Khurana, B. Sheth, J. Bhattacharya and M. Changizi for their comments on earlier drafts, and N. Afsarmanesh for experimental assistance. This project was partly supported by the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, (C) 14510164) and Genesis Research Institute.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Shinsuke Shimojo and Claudiu Simion: These authors contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Biology / Computation and Neural Systems, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, 91125, California, USA

    Shinsuke Shimojo, Claudiu Simion & Christian Scheier

  2. NTT Corporation, NTT Communication Science Laboratories, Human Information Science Laboratory, Atsugi, 243-0198, Kanagawa, Japan

    Shinsuke Shimojo

  3. Department of Human Studies, Bunkyo Gakuin University, Oimachi, Iruma-gun, 354, Saitama, Japan

    Eiko Shimojo

Authors
  1. Shinsuke Shimojo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudiu Simion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eiko Shimojo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christian Scheier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shinsuke Shimojo.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Fig. 1.

Block diagram of our dual contribution model. The two inputs, I1 and I2, are integrated in the decision module and compared with a "consciousness threshold" T; when T is reached the decision is made. Feedback from the decision module into the structures from which the inputs originate enhances their respective signals. When the task involves attractiveness, the feedback becomes positive, through the interaction between exposure and preferential looking. It is this positive feedback loop that makes the critical difference in gaze between preference and other tasks. The dashed feedback line into the cognitive assessment systems illustrates the general belief that cognitive representations flexible yet stable, thus cannot be changed easily by short-term exposure. (PDF 5 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E. et al. Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nat Neurosci 6, 1317–1322 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1150

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1150

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing