Wearable computing: Will it make people prosocial?

We recently reported that people who wear an eye tracker modify their natural looking behaviour in a prosocial manner. This change in looking behaviour represents a potential concern for researchers who wish to use eye trackers to understand the functioning of human attention. On the other hand, it may offer a real boon to manufacturers and consumers of wearable computing (e.g., Google Glass), for if wearable computing causes people to behave in a prosocial manner, then the public's fear that people with wearable computing will invade their privacy is unfounded. Critically, both of these divergent implications are grounded on the assumption that the prosocial behavioural effect of wearing an eye tracker is sustained for a prolonged period of time. Our study reveals that on the very first wearing of an eye tracker, and in less than 10 min, the prosocial effect of an eye tracker is abolished, but by drawing attention back to the eye tracker, the implied presence effect is easily reactivated. This suggests that eye trackers induce a transient social presence effect, which is rendered dormant when attention is shifted away from the source of implied presence. This is good news for researchers who use eye trackers to measure attention and behaviour; and could be bad news for advocates of wearable computing in everyday life.

[1]  Where Do We Look During Potentially Offensive Behavior? , 2008, Psychological science.

[2]  C. Carver A cybernetic model of self-attention processes. , 1979 .

[3]  Pat Barclay,et al.  Eye images increase generosity, but not for long: the limited effect of a false cue , 2013 .

[4]  A. Kingstone,et al.  Human Social Attention , 2009, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[5]  Marieke L. Fransen,et al.  The Eye of the Camera , 2009 .

[6]  Daniel Nettle,et al.  Effects of eye images on everyday cooperative behavior: a field experiment , 2011 .

[7]  S. Tipper,et al.  Gaze cueing of attention: visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.

[8]  N. Emery,et al.  The eyes have it: the neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze , 2000, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[9]  Bernard Guerin,et al.  Mere presence effects in humans: A review , 1986 .

[10]  C. Carver,et al.  The self-attention-induced feedback loop and social facilitation. , 1981 .

[11]  Rick Dale,et al.  The observer's observer's paradox , 2013, J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell..

[12]  Evan F. Risko,et al.  Eyes wide shut: implied social presence, eye tracking and attention , 2011, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[13]  Evan F. Risko,et al.  Perceived Access to Self-relevant Information Mediates Judgments of Privacy Violations in Neuromonitoring and Other Monitoring Technologies , 2014 .

[14]  Evan F. Risko,et al.  Social attention with real versus reel stimuli: toward an empirical approach to concerns about ecological validity , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[15]  J. Polivy,et al.  Effects of the presence of others on food intake: a normative interpretation. , 2003, Psychological bulletin.

[16]  A. Shariff,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article God Is Watching You Priming God Concepts Increases Prosocial Behavior in an Anonymous Economic Game , 2022 .

[17]  S. Baron-Cohen,et al.  Is There a "Language of the Eyes"? Evidence from Normal Adults, and Adults with Autism or Asperger Syndrome , 1997 .

[18]  Paul J. Costanzo,et al.  Social facilitation and inhibition of emotional expression and communication. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[19]  Hiromitsu Kobayashi,et al.  Unique morphology of the human eye , 1997, Nature.