5.3.1 Introduction
As previously outlined, Constable, et al. (2011) found that when asked to lift
and place an object on a table, participants placed objects that were owned by the
participant closer to themselves, in comparison to objects that were owned by another.
Therefore, in the present experiment ownership was manipulated by presenting the
agent and ambiguous number either in the Same or a Different-Room as the participant’s suggested position. This was achieved by the camera focusing on a table
inside a room through an open or closed door (using the window on the door to show
that the door was closed). The stimulus was also manipulated to include an agent, and
therefore alternative allocentric visual perspective, or not. Subsequently, using a
variation of the single response procedure of Experiment 8, Experiment 9 examined
the frequency of adopted perspective for four conditions with an open or closed door
together with the presence or absence of an agent.
As predicted during Experiment 8, it is expected that if ownership influences
spontaneous visual perspective taking, participants will be significantly more likely to
respond with an egocentric response when the ambiguous number is least challenged
to be owned by the agent (i.e., when the door is open, absent of an alternative
allocentric visual perspective). In addition, it is predicted that the stimulus displaying
an agent photographed through a closed door should produce the greatest frequency
of allocentric responses, as the scene strongly suggests that the ambiguous number
does not ‘belong’ to the participant, but to the agent. However, if these findings are
obtained, this experiment will challenge the spontaneous claim of the visual
influence over the visual perspective taking theory, if it is indeed a spontaneous
phenomenon.
5.3.2 Method
Participants
Two hundred and forty participants were obtained through opportunity
sampling within the surrounding community. All reporting normal or corrected to
normal vision and consisted of 85 males (155 females) all above the age of 18.
Stimuli and Apparatus
The four stimuli used for each condition are shown in Figure 5.3. Two
conditions depict an agent sat at a table looking at the ambiguous number presented in
front of them. Alternatively, the remaining two conditions were absent of the agent,
with the same ambiguous number presented. Additionally, two of the stimuli, one
with an agent and one without, were taken through an open door, hereafter deemed as
Same-Room, and the remaining two through a closed door, hereafter deemed as
Different-Room, using the glass in the door to showcase this manipulation.
As with Experiment 8, Experiment 9 used the same ambiguous number for all
conditions, i.e., ‘98’. For all conditions, the stimulus was presented in colour, high
resolution and laminated on A4 paper photographic paper, with approximately 60cm
Figure 5.3: The four conditions used in Experiment 9. Top left, Same-Room Agent Absent, promotes the viewer’s perceived ownership of the ambiguous number as the viewer is portrayed as inside the same room as the ambiguous number and there is no
allocentric visual perspective challenging ownership. Top right, Different-Room Agent Absent, challenges the viewer’s ownership over the ambiguous number by suggesting that they are outside of the room. Bottom left, Same-Room Agent Present
challenges the viewer’s ownership by presenting an allocentric visual perspective. Bottom right, Different-Room Agent Present reduces the viewer’s ownership by the presenting an allocentric visual perspective and suggesting that the viewer resides in
a different room.
Design and Procedure
As with Experiment 8, a single-factor design in which the frequency of
responses from each visual perspective (egocentric or allocentric) was taken. After
providing consent participants were randomly allocated to one of the four conditions,
using a dice roll. Participants were tested individually and told that they would be
shown a photograph that included a number placed on a table. They were then
experimenter recorded the participants’ gender and response before providing a
debrief, including exposure to the alternative conditions.
5.3.3 Results and Discussion
The percentage (and absolute) responses for egocentric and allocentric visual
perspective responses across the four conditions of Same-Room Agent Absent,
Different-Room Agent Absent, Same-Room Agent Present, and Different-Room
Agent Present can be viewed in Figure 5.4. A participant response of ‘98’ was
deemed as an egocentric visual perspective response, whereas, a response of ‘86’ was
interpreted as an allocentric visual perspective response.
Egocentric Perspective Allocentric Perspective
Same-Room Agent Absent 85 (51) 15 (9)
Different-Room Agent Absent 88 (53) 12 (7)
Same-Room Agent Present 77 (46) 23 (16)
Different-Room Agent Present 85 (51) 15 (9)
Figure 5.4: Percentage (and absolute) egocentric and allocentric visual perspective responses across the four conditions
Using the raw frequencies of responses, the proportion of egocentric and
allocentric visual perspective responses were analysed to see if they differed
depending on the manipulated ownership over the ambiguous number. This analysis
did not find a significant difference in proportions, X2 = 3.28, p = .35, Cramer’s Phi =
.12. Additional analyses were run to assess each condition’s specific difference to the
baseline condition of Same-Room Agent Absent. In terms of the difference between
Same-Room Agent Absent, and Different-Room Agent Absent, there was no
significant difference between proportions, X2 = .29, p = .59, Cramer’s Phi = .05. The
proportional difference between Same-Room Agent Absent, and Same-Room Agent
was no difference between Same-Room Agent Absent, and Different-Room Agent
Present, as the frequency of responses was identical between the two conditions.
It was predicted that conditions with an allocentric visual perspective and the
suggested participant position residing outside of the room as the ambiguous number
would challenge the perceived ownership over the ambiguous number significantly.
However, this was not found. Instead, it was found that participants predominately
adopted the egocentric visual perspective for all of the four conditions that
manipulated perceived ownership over the ambiguous number.
As was suggested by Experiment 8, the single response procedure could be
driving the non-significant finding. In other words, the single response obtained may
not have been able to access sufficient power to identify significance, even with the
increased sample size that Experiment 9 used in comparison with Experiment 8.
Consequently, Experiment 10 will examine perceived ownership using an alternative
approach. Instead of the single response method, standard RT measures using
multiple trials will be employed. In other words, the procedure that was used by
Experiment 1 and 2 will be used in the assessment of perceived ownership and