Effect of race on Gaze Cueing in adults with high and low autistic traits

Abstract

Background: Observing the direction of gaze of another person leads to shifting of attention in the same direction (gaze-cueing effect - GCE), a social-cognitive ability known as joint or social attention. Racial attitudes can influence the magnitude of GCE since it has been shown that White people showing a strong race ingroup preference follow the gaze only of White, and not Black, faces. Individuals with high autistic traits have difficulties in social-cognitive abilities that can disrupt the learning of socially shared racial attitudes. Our aim was to investigate in White Italian adults whether individuals with higher autistic traits (measured by the Autism Spectrum Quotient) show reduced implicit racial bias (measured by the Implicit Association Test) and if this bias would lead to differences in the gaze cueing effect (GCE) triggered by gaze direction of faces of different races (measured by the Gaze Cueing Task).

Methods: In an online study, participants (N = 165; 132 females; Mean age = 22.9; SD = 4.76) filled in the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) questionnaire, then performed a Gaze Cueing Task, followed and by an Implicit Association Test.

Results: Linear regression and linear mixed model analyses showed in the IAT task the presence of the same implicit ingroup bias for all participants, which was not predicted by the AQ score, while in the Gaze Cueing Task the GCE differed depending on the AQ score of the participants. Specifically, participants with low-medium, medium, and medium-high autistic traits (AQ = -1SD; AQ = mean; AQ = + 1SD respectively) presented the GCE for both ingroup and outgroup cueing faces, whereas participants with high autistic traits (AQ = + 2SD) only for ingroup faces.

Conclusions: In White Italian adults the presence of an implicit ingroup bias seems to influence the GCE, but it is not always true that the individuals showing an implicit ingroup bias do not orient their attention in the direction of gaze of the outgroup individuals. Instead, the GCE seems to be modulated by the level of autistic traits. That is, individuals with higher autistic traits seem to prioritize joint attention with only their ingroup members.

Keywords: Gaze-cueing effect; High and Low autistic traits; Implicit race bias; Ingroup bias.

Fig. 1

The sequence of events in an experimental trial started with a white fixation cross lasting for 900 ms (image a), then a face looking forward appeared remaining on the screen for others 900 ms (image b), when it was superimposed by the same face looking to the left or to the right (image c), 200 ms later a white target letter (i.e., an “L” or a “T”) appeared either on the left or on the right of the face (image d). In this example, the avatar of the cueing face was a White man and the gaze was averted toward the position in which the target letter appeared. Stimuli are drawn to scale. The cueing-face is taken from the database created by Pavan et al. [15]

Fig. 2

Image a is an example of an incongruent trial with a Black cueing face, in which the letter appeared in the opposite direction of the one indicated by gaze direction; image b is an example of congruent trial with a White cueing face, in which the direction of the averted gaze and position of the target letter were the same. Stimuli are drawn to scale. The cueing-faces are taken from the database created by Pavan et al. [15]

Fig. 3

The figure illustrates an example of a compatible double-categorization trial, in which a face stimulus was shown. Participants had to press the “E-key” when a White (Bianco) face or a positive word was presented and the “I-key” when there was a Black (Nero) face or a negative word. Stimuli are drawn to scale. The stimulus (i.e., a face) is taken from the database created by Pavan et al. [15]

Fig. 4

The figure represents an example of an incompatible double-categorization trial, in which a word stimulus was shown. Participants should press the “E-key” when a Black face or a positive (Positivo) word was presented and the “I-key” when there was a White face or a negative (Negativo) word. Stimuli are drawn to scale

Fig. 5

The graph shows the interaction between the Congruency, Race, and AQ score (F (1, 37,302) = 10.73; p = .001). Specifically, it shows how the interaction between Congruency and Race changes at the various levels of the AQ score, that are: AQ = 10 (-1SD) in the upper left panel; AQ = 16 (mean) in the upper right panel; AQ = 23 (+ 1SD) in the lower left panel; AQ = 29 (+ 2SD) in the lower right panel. The graph shows that at medium–low, medium, and medium–high AQ score levels (i.e., AQ = 10; AQ = 16; AQ = 23) participants were faster in the congruent condition than in the incongruent one, with both White (AQ = 10: ratio = 0.98; p _Bonferroni < .0001; AQ = 16: ratio = 0.98; p _Bonferroni < .0001; AQ = 23: ratio = 0.97; p _Bonferroni < .0001) and Black gaze-cueing faces (AQ = 10: ratio = 0.97; p _Bonferroni < .0001; AQ = 16: ratio = 0.98; p _Bonferroni < .0001; AQ = 23: ratio = 0.99; p _Bonferroni = .009). Whereas at high AQ score level (AQ = 29, lower right panel) participants were faster in the congruent condition than in the incongruent one only with White faces (ratio = 0.97; p _Bonferroni < .0001; M = 542; SE = 15.2; 95% CI [513, 572] vs. M = 561; SE = 15.7; 95% CI [531, 593]) and not with Black ones (ratio = 0.995; p _Bonferroni = 1; M = 551; SE = 15.4; 95% CI [522, 582] vs. M = 554; SE = 15.5; 95% CI [524, 585]). The shaded areas around lines represent the 95% confidence intervals. Black asterisks are referred to the solid lines, white asterisks to the dashed lines. ** p < .01, *** p < .001