Alexandra and Mats will present an updated version of their IACS-5 poster, in this 30+15 minutes presentation. Welcome to the room, or to the zoom link with cameras on. The talk itself will start at 15:15

In a previous study (Mouratidou et al., in press), participants were asked to make a choice between a pair of pictures showing human faces and subsequently to justify their preference for the one they found most attractive. For some trials their choices were manipulated, presenting them with the non-preferred alternative as if that had been their choice. Sometimes this manipulation was detected, sometimes not, and the study demonstrated that even when the detection of the manipulation was not verbally expressed, it was often manifest in their bodily expressions. 

In this talk, I report ongoing research which examines more closely participants’ deictic gestures towards preferred and non-preferred alternatives, in two conditions: when they are presented with their preferred alternative (non-manipulated choice trials), and when they are presented with the non-preferred one as their choice (detected and non-detected manipulation trials). The aim was to explore whether there are correspondences between experiential preference and deictic gestures in different communicative interactions (non-manipulated and manipulated choice trials). To test this, we categorised the verbal responses of 29 Greek participants based on the type of trial and detection into (a) non-manipulated, (b) detected manipulated, and (c) non-detected manipulated trials. Participants’ deictic gestures were coded in terms of the indicated Object (e.g., preferred or non-preferred picture card), Form (e.g., palm, finger), Hand (right, left or both), Distance (close or far from the picture), and Tactility (e.g., touch, tap). Further, the utterance that participants synchronically produced when deictic gestures were coded, along with whether it had a positive, neutral or negative Valence. 

Preliminary results show differences in deictic gestures across non-manipulated and manipulated choice trials in: rates of occurrence for the indicated Object, Form, Hand, Tactility and Valence. Differences in, at least, some of the categories indicate alignment between participants’ experiential preference and deixis. Such differences could further suggest a degree of awareness of participants’ choice, even if this is not mentioned explicitly in speech: a matter of pre-reflective marginal consciousness (Gurwitsch 1978; Zlatev 2008).

Mouratidou, A., Zlatev, J., & J. van de Weijer. (In press). The body says it all: Non-verbal indicators of choice awareness. Cognitive Semiotics.

Gurwitsch, A. 1974. Phenomenology and the theory of science. [Ann Arbor, Mich.: Reprinted for Northwestern University Press by University Microfilms International. Edited by Lester Embree.

Zlatev, J. 2008. The dependence of language on consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 15(6), 36-62.