psychology research paper

Personality and Individual Differences 60 (2014) 25–29

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / p a i d

The influence of personality on social attention

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.017

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, 2136 West Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada. Tel.: +1 604 822 0069

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D.W.-L. Wu), [email protected] (A. Kingstone).

David W.-L. Wu a,⇑, Walter F. Bischof b, Nicola C. Anderson c, Tanya Jakobsen a, Alan Kingstone a,⇑ a Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Canada b Department of Computing Science, University of Alberta, Canada c Department of Cognitive Psychology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 20 August 2013 Received in revised form 13 November 2013 Accepted 25 November 2013 Available online 25 December 2013

Keywords: Personality Social cognition Big Five Social attention Eye-tracking

The intersection between personality psychology and the study of social attention has been relatively untouched. We present an initial study that investigates the influence of the Big Five personality traits on eye movement behaviour towards social stimuli. By combining a free-viewing eye-tracking paradigm with canonical correlation and regression analyses, we discover that personality relates to fixations towards eye regions. Specifically, Extraversion and Agreeableness were related to greater gaze selection, while Openness to Experience was related to diminished gaze selection. The results demonstrate that who a person is affects how they move their eyes to social stimuli. The results also indicate that person- ality is a stronger factor in predicting social attention than past studies have suggested. Critical to the influence of personality on attention is the social situations viewers are placed in.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Current theory suggests that people have an automatic ten- dency to attend to the eyes of social agents because they provide foundational information for understanding the intentions and internal states of others (see for a review, Shepherd, 2010). Stem- ming from this theory, researchers have explored the idea that individual differences in the capacity for social understanding may determine how people attend to social stimuli. For example, Bayliss, Pellegrino, and Tipper (2005) found that participants who scored higher on the Autism Quotient (AQ; Baron-Cohen, Wheel- wright, Skinner, Martin, & Clubley, 2001) had reduced cuing effects in a gaze-cuing paradigm.

This question about the relationship between the AQ and social attention has recently been extended beyond the gaze-cuing para- digm to how people select and attend to natural social stimuli. A recent study by Freeth, Foulsham, and Kingstone (2013) found that participants who had a higher AQ looked less at other people when they were depicted in a video, but in a live situation there was no relationship between the AQ scores and social attention. However, these results contradict previous findings that a higher AQ is corre- lated with reduced attention to individuals embedded in a real world situation, but not when people are depicted in video (Laidlaw, Foulsham, Kuhn, & Kingstone, 2011). While in general

these studies support the theory that looking at the eyes of others is based on the need for social understanding, the conflicting find- ings involving the AQ suggest that it is not a particularly reliable indicator of the relationship between social attention and looking behaviour.

We think it would be premature to conclude from these partic- ular AQ findings, however, that personality overall is not a strong determinant of social attention. Yet, researchers asking the ques- tion ‘‘where do people look’’ have rarely explored differences in who those people are. To the extent that individual differences have been investigated in the social attention literature, they largely con- cern gross physiological differences like gender, age, or clinical dis- orders (see for a review, Frischen, Bayliss, & Tipper, 2007). Other personality traits besides the AQ have not been explored systemat- ically in relation to social attention. Therefore it may be that the AQ is simply one personality trait that is not a strong predictor of social attention, and it is not representative of the importance of other personality traits. Support for this view comes from questionnaire studies suggesting that the AQ is an independent personality dimension, not captured by other personality dimensions (Austin, 2005; Wakabayashi, Baron-Cohen, & Wheelwright, 2006), and from recent empirical investigations indicating that other traits, such as perceptual curiosity, are strongly related to exploratory looking behaviour (Risko, Anderson, Lanthier, & Kingstone, 2012). There- fore, the purpose of this investigation is to expand the literature on personality and social attention to determine whether personal- ity traits other than the AQ can strongly predict social attention. To do this, we examined the influence of the most comprehensive per- sonality model, the Big Five personality traits, on looking behaviour

26 D.W.-L. Wu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 60 (2014) 25–29

towards social stimuli, specifically the eye regions of static social scenes in a free-viewing paradigm.

The Big Five personality traits (also called the Five Factor Mod- el) is the most widely-accepted personality model in psychology (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990; John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & John, 1992). The Big Five personality traits are Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. It has been used in many different fields of study out- side of personality psychology, including clinical psychology (Samuel & Widiger, 2008), applied psychology (Zhao & Seibert, 2006), and neuroscience (DeYoung et al., 2010). The Big Five traits have revealed that ‘‘who one is’’ is a strong and pervasive predictor of human behaviour and cognition, from entrepreneurship (Zhao & Seibert, 2006) to artistic preference (Chamorro-Premuzic, Reimers, Hsu, & Ahmetoglu, 2009). Notably absent from the social attention literature is the use of the Big Five. Since the beginning, social attention research has focused on how external factors, like task demands, influence attention (Yarbus, 1967). Given that the Big Five appears to relate to so many aspects of human behaviour, it seems to be an excellent starting point for bringing together the lit- erature on personality and social attention.

While no one has yet explored how the Big Five influences eye movements, there are some predictions that can be made based on prior personality and social attention research. A study by Berry and Hansen (2000) found that Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Openness to Experience were positively related to the quality of social interaction between female strangers in a spontaneous real-world situation where the dyads were left alone to interact for six minutes. Extraversion and Agreeableness were both posi- tively related to the quality of the interaction as rated by the par- ticipants and third party observers. Moreover, Agreeableness and Openness were specifically related to the degree of visual contact between participants, and they mediated how third party observ- ers rated the interactions. If the quality of social interaction is re- lated to social understanding, and social understanding underlies attention towards eyes, then the three personality traits of Extra- version, Agreeableness, and Openness to Experience should be re- lated to gaze selection. Agreeableness and Openness may be an especially strong predictor based on Berry and Hansen (2000)’s finding.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

Fifty students from the University of British Columbia were gi- ven course credit or paid $5 to participate in the present study.

2.2. Stimuli

Thirty unique images featuring fractals, landscape, and human scenes were presented (10 of each type; fractals and landscapes were from Foulsham & Kingstone, 2010; human scenes were from Birmingham, Bischof, & Kingstone, 2008). Fractal and landscape scenes were used to investigate another research question unre- lated to this study (see Wu, Anderson, Bischof, & Kingstone, in press). Human scenes involved pictures of three-people interact- ing (e.g., playing a board game), three-people not interacting, and scenes with just one person. In all images the models were seated in interior settings. Because both the number of people in a scene and the level of interaction can influence the amount of attention towards eye regions (Birmingham et al., 2008), a sampling from these scenes provided a reasonable average. The scenes were 1024 � 768 pixels, and corresponded to a horizontal

visual angle approximating 42�, and a vertical visual angle approximating 33�.

2.3. Questionnaires

Each participant was asked to complete the 44-item Big Five Inventory (BFI; Benet-Martínez & John, 1998; John & Srivastava, 1999). This inventory is widely used in the literature, and has high internal reliability for each Big Five trait, ranging from a = .79 to .88, with a mean a = .83 (Benet-Martínez & John, 1998). This is comparable to other shortened Big Five question- naires, but the BFI is considerably more efficient taking only five minutes to complete, and is also easier to understand (John & Srivastava, 1999).

2.4. Apparatus

An SR Research Eyelink 1000 eye-tracking system, recorded participants’ eye movements at 1000 Hz. Stimuli were presented to participants on a 23’’ monitor. Scenes and eye movements were also presented to the experimenter on an adjacent monitor located in the testing room, relaying real-time feedback on system accuracy.

2.5. Procedure

Participants were seated 60 cm from the computer monitor, with their heads positioned in a chin rest. Participants were told to freely view each image as they would normally. Images were presented for 10 s. Participants viewed 30 randomly ordered images before being asked to complete the questionnaires.

2.6. Data analysis

Interest areas were defined for the eye regions of the human scenes as was done in Birmingham et al. (2008). We quantified both the total amount of time participants spent looking at these eye regions, and the average duration of fixations in these eye regions. Previous results using these humans scenes showed that participants fixate more to the eyes than any other region in the scene (Birmingham et al., 2008). This tendency remained true across different tasks (e.g., free-viewing versus describing the picture), and across the amount of activity in the scene (e.g., whether people in the scene were interacting or not).

3. Results

3.1. Canonical correlation analysis

To investigate the relationship between the variable sets, per- sonality and social attention, a canonical correlational analysis (Sherry & Henson, 2005) was conducted with the Big Five traits as the predictor variables, and the average fixation duration to- wards the eye region and the total time spent in the eye region of human scenes as the dependent variables. A canonical correlation creates synthetic predictor and dependent variables (i.e., variables extrapolated from direct measurement) using linear equations from the underlying variable sets (analogous to multiple regres- sion). These two linear equations are created to yield the maxi- mum possible correlation between the two synthetic variables. Canonical correlation analysis is advantageous when there are multiple predictor and dependent variables because it limits the possibility of a Type I error. As a multivariate technique, it does not require separate analyses for each dependent variable

Table 1 Values of the first canonical function for Big Five personality traits predicting attention towards eyes. Structure coefficients (rs) greater than |.30| and communality coefficients (h2) greater than 30% are bolded.

Variable Standardized canonical coefficient

rs h 2 (%)

Big Five Extraversion .591 .338 11.42 Agreeableness .545 .360 12.96 Conscientiousness .012 .254 6.45 Neuroticism .349 .114 1.30 Openness �.864 �.649 42.12

Social attention Average fixation

duration .469 .795 63.20

Total fixation time .689 .910 82.81

Note: Because only one function was noteworthy in this case, the communality coefficient is equal to the squared of the structure coefficient (h2 = rs

2).

Table 2 Standardized beta coefficients, t-test values, and p-values for Big Five traits predicting average fixation duration and total fixation time towards eye regions. Bolded values denote p < .05.

Variable Standardized beta coefficient t-Test value p-Value

Average fixation duration Extraversion .385 2.82 .007 Agreeableness .228 1.65 .105 Conscientiousness �0.09 �.689 .494 Neuroticism .064 .471 .640 Openness �.425 �3.01 .004

Total fixation time Extraversion .248 1.89 .066 Agreeableness .314 2.36 .023 Conscientiousness .074 .565 .575 Neuroticism .258 1.98 .054 Openness �.455 �3.42 .001

D.W.-L. Wu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 60 (2014) 25–29 27

examined, and theoretically aligns well with the reality of psychological research in examining complex human behaviour where there are multiple causes and effects (Sherry & Henson, 2005).

The canonical correlations yielded two functions with squared canonical functions (Rc

2) of .353, and .088 for each successive func- tion. Considered collectively, the full model across both functions was significant, Wilks’s k = .590, F(10, 86) = 2.595, p = .008. The ef- fect size of the full model can be determined by calculating 1 � k (Sherry & Henson, 2005), meaning in this case that the full model explained 1-.59 or 41% of the shared variance between personality and social attention. A dimension reduction analysis revealed that while the first function explained a significant portion of the vari- ance between personality and social attention, the second function did not, Wilks’s k = .912, F(4, 44) = 1.065, p = .385. Thus, only the first function was examined. See Fig. 1 for a visual depiction of the model of the first function.

The squared canonical correlation (Rc 2) value for the first

function was .353, meaning the function explained 35.3% of the shared variance between the variable sets, personality and social attention. Table 1 displays the standardized canonical coefficients (i.e., canonical weights), structure coefficients (i.e., factor loadings), and communality coefficients for the function. Looking at these values, we see that Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Openness are the relevant predictor variables. Of particular interest is Openness, which had a communality coefficient (h2) approximately four times as high as Extraversion or Agreeable- ness, suggesting it is four times as useful in the model as the next most relevant predictor variable. Importantly, the signs for the coefficients for Openness were the inverse of the signs of all other variables, including the dependent variables, indicat- ing a negative relationship. Therefore, participants who had higher Openness scores spent less time fixating at eye regions, whereas participants who had higher scores on Extraversion or Agreeableness, spent more time at eye regions.

As for the dependent variables, both average fixation duration and total fixation time looking at eyes were relevant for the mea- surement of social attention, with both variables having high struc- ture and communality coefficients. Interestingly, both variables had structure coefficients greater than their standardized canonical coefficients, which is the opposite of that on the predictor side. A relatively high structure coefficient with a low canonical coeffi- cient implies a high degree of multicollinearity (Sherry & Henson, 2005). Therefore, average fixation duration and total fixation time are highly related (e.g., people look long and frequently at the eyes), whereas the Big Five traits (except for conscientiousness) uniquely contributed to the personality variate synthesized by the canonical function.

Extraversion

Agreeableness

Conscientiousnes s

Neuroticism

Openness

Rc 2 =

Fig. 1. A graphical depiction of the first canonical model between personality and social a left, and the dependent variables on the right. The squared canonical correlation coefficien of the variance between the two variable sets.

3.2. Multiple regression analysis

After establishing that Big Five influences social attention with the canonical correlation analysis, multiple regressions can further investigate how personality impacts each dependent variable sep- arately. Big Five traits explained a significant amount of variance of both average fixation duration, R2 = .26, F(5, 44) = 3.02, p = .02, and total fixation time, R2 = .31, F(5, 44) = 3.91, p = .005. Beta coeffi- cients for each trait are displayed in Table 2. As expected from the canonical correlation analysis, Openness was the strongest pre- dictor for both social attention measures. Interestingly, Extraver- sion appears to be much more influential in predicting average fixation duration whereas Agreeableness appears to be more influ-

Average Fixation Duration

Total Fixation Time

ttention, with the structure coefficients (rs) for the predictor variables shown on the t (Rc

2) between the two variable sets was .353, meaning the function explains 35.3%

Table 3 Correlation matrix of all variables with Pearson’s r-values. Bolded values denote p < .05.

Variable Average fixation duration Total fixation time Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness

Average fixation duration 1.00 Total fixation time .472 1.00 Extraversion .273 1.06 1.00 Agreeableness .138 .217 �.015 1.00 Conscientiousness .027 .201 .034 .202 1.00 Neuroticism �.052 .134 �.145 �.203 �.058 1.00 Openness �.293 �.360 .226 .124 �.153 .044 1.00

28 D.W.-L. Wu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 60 (2014) 25–29

ential in predicting total fixation time. A correlation matrix for all the variables is displayed in Table 3.

1 Supporting this theory, our data also shows that numerically Openness had the greatest influence on social attention in scenes with only one person or scenes devoid of action. Those who score high on Openness may be seeking to extract meaning in other parts of the scene when the meaning is not revealed by social interaction or activity. However, as there were only a few scenes in each subcategory, we hesitate to propose this result as anything more than suggestive.

4. Discussion

The aim of the present investigation was to examine whether the general personality of the viewer influences social attention as measured by looking behaviour to the eye regions of other peo- ple in social scenes. As described in the introduction, research on the AQ suggests that it is an unreliable indicator of looking behav- iour. However, past work also suggests that the AQ measures a per- sonality trait that is independent of the Big Five personality traits (Wakabayashi et al., 2006). Thus, we took a more generalized ap- proach to investigate the relation between personality and social attention. Our findings indicate that personality, as assessed by the Big Five, relates to eye movements towards social stimuli, with Extraversion and Agreeableness both relating positively to the amount of attention committed to the eyes of others, and Open- ness to Experience relating negatively to the attention committed to eyes. The variance in social attention explained by the Big Five is in line with other studies that have explored how differences in the viewer can be predictive of eye movement behaviour. For example, Tseng, Carmi, Cameron, Munoz, and Itti (2009) found that top-down subjective factors explained about 31% of variance in center bias behaviour in dynamic scenes, around double the vari- ance that could be explained by bottom-up saliency factors alone.

The Extraversion and Agreeableness findings dovetail with pre- vious reports that these traits relate directly and positively to the quality of live social interactions (Berry & Hansen, 2000). More- over, Extraversion has been linked to reward circuitry, especially those arising from positive emotions (e.g. happy faces), which is thought to underlie the sociability that is prominent in extraverts (Canli, Sivers, Whitfield, Gotlib, & Gabrieli, 2002; DeYoung et al., 2010). Agreeableness, on the other hand, is linked to empathy and prosocial behaviour (Graziano, Habashi, Sheese, & Tobin, 2007). Interestingly, our regression analysis found Extraversion to be a stronger predictor of fixation duration, while Agreeableness was stronger in predicting total fixation time. While it is premature to draw any strong conclusions, recent research has suggested that areas related to Extraversion, in particular, the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex (Canli et al., 2002; DeYoung et al., 2010) are associated with direct gaze contact and duration (Kuzmanovic et al., 2009; Nummenmaa & Calder, 2009). On the other hand, areas related to Agreeableness, such as the posterior superior temporal sulcus and fusiform gyrus (DeYoung et al., 2010), respond to facial features and social cues more generally (Nummenmaa & Calder, 2009). Thus, it could be that those individuals scoring high on Agreeableness do not dwell on the eyes, but cycle through a num- ber of facial features (including the eyes). At present these must re- main as viable possibilities that warrant further investigation. In summary, our finding that Extraversion and Agreeableness load positively on attention to eyes is convergent with recent work that suggests extraverts find social stimuli to be rewarding, while peo- ple who score high on Agreeableness are more responsive to find- ing intentionality in social cues (DeYoung et al., 2010).

Additionally, our study highlights the need to closely analyze dif- ferent measures of social attention, as distinct biological mecha- nisms may be responsible for different expressions of social attention (Kuzmanovic et al., 2009).

Neuroticism and Conscientiousness were unrelated to social attention, even though both traits have been found to relate to the AQ (Austin, 2005; Wakabayashi et al., 2006). We suggest two reasons for this result. Firstly, the AQ may be an unreliable mea- sure of looking behaviour. Secondly, Neuroticism and Conscien- tiousness capture more internal aspects of personality that do not relate to the social world. Indeed, lexical terms that describe both traits are largely non-social. For example, organization and efficiency for conscientiousness, and emotional stability and inse- curity for neuroticism (Goldberg, 1990).

Our finding that Openness to Experience relates negatively to attention diverges sharply from past work that has found that in live interactions, Openness relates positively to the amount of vi- sual attention the participants give each other (Berry & Hansen, 2000). This contrast adds to the growing body of evidence that insofar as social attention is concerned, there can be profound dif- ferences in committing social attention to real people versus images of people (Risko, Laidlaw, Freeth, Foulsham, & Kingstone, 2012). To wit, someone who scores high on Openness to Experi- ence may be intrigued by meeting someone new and thus devote much attention to engage that real person. However, in a labora- tory setting, when presented with images of people that cannot interact back, there is no potential for a social interaction (cf. Wu, Bischof, & Kingstone, 2013). This is precisely the type of situ- ation that participants who are high on Openness to Experience may find least rewarding. Openness is related to imagination and the tendency to give complex narratives (McAdams et al., 2004). One possibility is that, when given a neutral task such as ‘‘look nor- mally’’, those who scored high on Openness may in fact be trying to extract meaning and create narrative by looking at the various ob- jects in the scene.1

We believe our finding that personality is related to attention towards eyes is relevant to the broader literature on the underlying mechanism involving social attention. While there is mounting evidence that gaze selection is relatively automatic (Laidlaw, Risko, & Kingstone, 2012), and may be subserved by a phylogenetically primitive subcortical system (Levy, Foulsham, & Kingstone, 2013), there are other factors that may influence the degree to which attention to eyes is selected. That is, while initial gaze selec- tion is relatively automatic, the number of times this selection is reiterated may depend on a number of ‘‘high level’’ factors. The sit- uational context in which the observer is embedded is one such factor that has recently been found to be important (Laidlaw et al., 2011; Risko, Laidlaw, et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2013). The

D.W.-L. Wu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 60 (2014) 25–29 29

present work suggests that the general personality of the observer is yet another important factor.

Our study supports the notion that the three traits: Openness to Experience, Extraversion, and Agreeableness, are uniquely related to social behaviours more generally (Berry & Hansen, 2000). Future research may wish to decompose this relationship between the selection of the eyes of others (Birmingham & Kingstone, 2009), and the subsequent effects that this selection has on the allocation of attention, e.g., gaze-cueing (Friesen & Kingstone, 1998). Indeed, researchers have wondered to what degree individual differences in gaze-cuing are in fact due to differences in gaze selection (Frischen et al., 2007).

Our study brings about yet another wrinkle to the lively dis- course regarding the limitations and generalizability of findings that emerge when studying social attention using real people ver- sus images of real people (Risko, Laidlaw, et al., 2012). Our results, coupled with those from Berry and Hansen (2000), suggest that personality interacts profoundly with social context to bring about differences in how one attends to others. This idea may also ex- plain the previous contradictory findings between AQ and social attention in live settings (Freeth et al., 2013; Laidlaw et al., 2011). While both studies took place in real-world settings, the Freeth et al. (2013) study involved a friendly one-on-one interac- tion whereas the Laidlaw et al. (2011) study involved a potentially awkward waiting-room situation. There are different norms under- lying these two situations, which may lead to divergent behaviours (Wu et al., 2013). Personality differences may interact with social context to exacerbate differences in attention allocation.

In conclusion, we found that personality as assessed by the Big Five is related to gaze selection when free-viewing static images. Specifically, an increase in Extraversion and Agreeableness is re- lated to an increase in the attention one commits to the eyes of others, while an increase in Openness to Experience is related to less attention being committed to the eyes depicted in static images of people. We discussed several of the many potential lines of inquiry that emerge from this study – questions that no doubt will bring personality and social attention researchers into closer collaboration. We hope that this study inspires further research into the relationship between who one is and how one sees the world.

References

Austin, E. J. (2005). Personality correlates of the broader autism phenotype as assessed by the autism spectrum quotient (AQ). Personality and Individual Differences, 38(2), 451–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.04.022.

Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger syndrome/high- functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(1), 5–17.

Bayliss, A. P., Pellegrino, G. Di., & Tipper, S. P. (2005). Sex differences in eye gaze and symbolic cueing of attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(4), 631–650. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000124.

Benet-Martínez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los cinco grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod analyses of the big five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 729–750.

Berry, D. S., & Hansen, J. S. (2000). Personality, nonverbal behavior, and interaction quality in female dyads. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 278–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265002.

Birmingham, E., Bischof, W. F., & Kingstone, A. (2008). Gaze selection in complex social scenes. Visual Cognition, 16(2–3), 341–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 13506280701434532.

Birmingham, E., & Kingstone, A. (2009). Human social attention: A new look at past, present, and future investigations. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156, 118–140.

Canli, T., Sivers, H., Whitfield, S. L., Gotlib, I. H., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002). Amygdala response to happy faces as a function of extraversion. Science, 296(5576), 2191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1068749.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Reimers, S., Hsu, A., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2009). Who art thou? Personality predictors of artistic preferences in a large UK sample: The importance of openness. British Journal of Psychology, 100, 501–516.

DeYoung, C. G., Hirsh, J. B., Shane, M. S., Papademetris, X., Rajeevan, N., & Gray, J. R. (2010). Testing predictions from personality neuroscience: Brain structure and the big five. Psychological Science, 21(6), 820–828. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0956797610370159.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 417–440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.ps.41.020190.002221.

Foulsham, T., & Kingstone, A. (2010). Asymmetries in the direction of saccades during perception of scenes and fractals: Effects of image type and image features. Vision Research, 50(8), 779–795. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.visres.2010.01.019.

Freeth, M., Foulsham, T., & Kingstone, A. (2013). What affects social attention? Social presence, eye contact and autistic traits. PloS One, 8(1), e53286. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053286.

Friesen, C. K., & Kingstone, A. (1998). The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(3), 490–495.

Frischen, A., Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). Gaze cueing of attention: Visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 694–724. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.694.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ‘‘description of personality’’: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229.

Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M. (2007). Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: A person � situation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 583–599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.93.4.583.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (2nd ed, pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford.

Kuzmanovic, B., Georgescu, A., Eickhoff, S. B., Shah, N. J., Bente, G., Fink, G. R., et al. (2009). Duration matters: Dissociating neural correlates of detection and evaluation of social gaze. Neuroimage, 46(4), 1154–1163.

Laidlaw, K. E. W., Foulsham, T., Kuhn, G., & Kingstone, A. (2011). Potential social interactions are important to social attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(14), 5548–5553. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1017022108.

Laidlaw, K. E. W., Risko, E. F., & Kingstone, A. (2012). A new look at social attention: Orienting to the eyes is not (entirely) under volitional control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(5), 1132–1143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027075.

Levy, J., Foulsham, T., & Kingstone, A. (2013). Monsters are people too. Biology Letters, 9(1), 20120850. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2012.0850.

McAdams, D. P., Anyidoho, N. A., Brown, C., Huang, Y. T., Kaplan, B., & Machado, M. A. (2004). Traits and stories: Links between dispositional and narrative features of pesronality. Journal of Personality, 72(4), 761–784.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215.

Nummenmaa, L., & Calder, A. J. (2009). Neural mechanisms of social attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(3), 135–143.

Risko, E. F., Anderson, N. C., Lanthier, S., & Kingstone, A. (2012). Curious eyes: Individual differences in personality predict eye movement behavior in scene- viewing. Cognition, 122(1), 86–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.cognition.2011.08.014.

Risko, E. F., Laidlaw, K., Freeth, M., Foulsham, T., & Kingstone, A. (2012). Social attention with real versus reel stimuli: Toward an empirical approach to concerns about ecological validity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 143. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00143.

Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: A facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(8), 1326–1342. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.07.002.

Shepherd, S. V. (2010). Following gaze: Gaze-following behavior as a window into social cognition. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 4, 5. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3389/fnint.2010.00005.

Sherry, A., & Henson, R. (2005). Conducting and interpreting canonical correlation analysis in personality research: A user-friendly primer. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(1), 37–48.

Tseng, P.-H., Carmi, R., Cameron, I. G. M., Munoz, D. P., & Itti, L. (2009). Quantifying center bias of observers in free viewing of dynamic natural scenes. Journal of Vision, 9(7), 1–16.

Wakabayashi, A., Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2006). Are autistic traits an independent personality dimension? A study of the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ) and the NEO-PI-R. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(5), 873–883. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.04.003.

Wu, D. W. -L., Anderson, N. C., Bischof, W. F., & Kingstone, A. (2013). Temporal dynamics of eye movements are related to scene differences in complexity and clutter [in press].

Wu, D. W.-L., Bischof, W. F., & Kingstone, A. (2013). Looking while eating: The importance of social context to social attention. Scientific Reports, 3, 2356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep02356.

Yarbus, A. L. (1967). Eye Movements and Vision (B. Haigh, Trans.). New York: Plenum Press. (Original work published 1965).

Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 259–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.259.