Science for Education Today, 2025, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 162–183
UDC: 
316.752+159.91+37.03

Evaluating the formation level of university students’ values on the basis of eye tracking indicators

Nesterenko V. V. 1 (Tomsk, Russian Federation), Zyryanov M. S. 1 (Tomsk, Russian Federation), Garina A. V. 1 (Tomsk, Russian Federation), Tolstova M. A. 1 (Tomsk, Russian Federation)
1 National Research Tomsk State University
Abstract: 

Introduction. The major research problem of the article is the necessity to develop and improve the methods of assessing the degree of formation of students’ values using the indicators of eye tracking activities to increase the accuracy of value orientations assessments and their influence on professional development in the conditions of modern educational requirements.
Materials and Methods. The research methodology is based on a comprehensive approach to the study of students’ values and includes two main methods: a linguistic questionnaire and an eye tracking method.
Results. Using data from the linguistic questionnaire, the authors identified two groups of respondents - with formed and unformed values. Participants with different levels of values demonstrated different dilemma-solving strategies. Through the use of the eye tracking method, the authors determined the features of eye tracking patterns depending on the degree of formed values. Statistically significant differences in value perception were found for three dilemmas (Parenting/Citizenship, Work/Recreation, Physical Well-being/Sports): respondents with unformed values spent more time reading the text of the dilemma. Nevertheless, the lack of significant differences overall, as well as the diversity of behavioral patterns among individuals with unformed values in the face of difficult moral choices, suggests that the prospects for applying iTracking technology in such studies require further discussion.
Conclusions. The study did not confirm the presence of significant differences in the parameters of visual perception between subjects with formed and unformed values, but statistically significant differences were found in some features, in particular, the number and duration of fixations during decision making. The application of the eye tracking method to assess the level of values formation requires a comprehensive approach, including qualitative analysis of a linguistic questionnaire or an interview.

Keywords: 

Students; Values; Eye tracking; Linguistic questionnaire; Visual perception; Value formation; Cognitive processing.

For citation:
Nesterenko V. V., Zyryanov M. S., Garina A. V., Tolstova M. A. Evaluating the formation level of university students’ values on the basis of eye tracking indicators. Science for Education Today, 2025, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 162–183. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2502.08
References: 
  1. Vitelar A. Like me: Generation Z and the use of social media for personal branding. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 2019, vol. 7 (2), pp. 257-268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25019/MDKE/7.2.07
  2. Tarka P., Harnish R. J., Babaev J. From materialism to hedonistic shopping values and compulsive buying: A mediation model examining gender differences. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2022, vol. 21 (4), pp. 786-805. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2037 
  3. Metin-Orta I., Demirutku K. Cyberloafing behaviors among university students and its relation to Hedonistic-Stimulation value orientation, cyberloafing attitudes, and time spent on the Internet. Current Psychology, 2020, vol. 41 (7), pp. 271-282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00932-9 
  4. Khripunova O. G., Polyarush A. A., Selivanova E. V., Luneva E. V. Undergraduate students’ value orientations: Gender characteristics. Science for Education Today, 2019, vol. 9 (5), pp. 24-36. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.1905.02  
  5. Ashilova M. S., Begalinov A. S., Pushkarev Y. V., Begalinova K. K., Pushkareva E. A. Values in foundation of modern globalizing society: Change study. Science for Education Today, 2023, vol. 13 (2), pp. 99-121. URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=53699841 DOI: http://doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2302.05
  6. Liventsova E. Yu., Gorchakova O. Yu., Tolstova M. A. The role of generation Z media literacy in confronting the destructive value messages of digital media. Perspectives of Science and Education, 2024, no. 2. pp. 24-40. URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=67207833 DOI: http://doi.org/10.32744/pse.2024.2.2
  7. Doring A. K., Schwartz S. H., Cieciuch J., Groenen P. J. F., Glatzel V., Harasimczuk J., Janowicz N., Nyagolova M., Scheefer E. R., Allritz M., Milfont T. L., Bilsky W. Cross-cultural evidence of value structures and priorities in childhood. British Journal of Psychology, 2015, vol. 106 (4), pp. 675-699. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12116  
  8. Doring A. K. Measuring children’s values from around the world: Cross-cultural adaptations of the picture-based value survey for children (PBVS-C). Studia Psychologica: Theoria Et Praxis, 2018, vol. 18 (1), pp. 49-59. DOI: http://doi.org/10.21697/sp.2018.18.1.03
  9. Han S., Northoff G., Culture-sensitive neural substrates of human cognition: A transcultural neuroimaging approach. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2008, vol. 9 (8), pp. 646-654. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2456
  10. Ames D. L., Fiske S. T. Cultural neuroscience. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2010, vol. 13 (2), pp. 72-82. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010.01301.x
  11. Chiao J. Y., Cheon B. K., Pornpattananangkul N., Mrazek A. J., Blizinsky K. D. Cultural neuroscience: Progress and promise, psychological inquiry. An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory, 2010, vol. 24 (1), pp. 1-19. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2013.752715
  12. Ryndina A. S. Large-scale values research: Opportunities and limitations. Theory and Practice of Social Development, 2021, no. 6, pp. 63-69. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=46245149
  13. Kiselnikova N. V. Methodological problems of measuring values and value-oriented human behavior. Social Psychology and Society, 2021, vol. 12 (4), pp. 20–33. (In Russian) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17759/sps.2021120402
  14. Kucyi A., Kam J. W. Y., Andrews-Hanna J. R., Christoff K., Whitfield-Gabrieli S. Recent advances in the neuroscience of spontaneous and off-task thought: Implications for mental health. Nature Mental Health, 2023, vol. 1 (11), pp. 827-840. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-023-00133-w.
  15. Kelley W. M., Macrae C. N., Wyland C. L., Caglar S., Inati S., Heatherton T. F. Finding the self? An event-related fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2002, vol. 14 (5), pp. 785-794. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/08989290260138672
  16. Ng S. H., Han S., Mao L., Lai J. C. L. Dynamic bicultural brains: fMRI study of the irflexible neural representation of self and significant others in response to culture primes. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2010, vol. 13 (2), pp. 83-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010.01303.x
  17. Chiao J. Y., Cheon B. K., Pornpattananangkul N., Mrazek A. J., Blizinsky K. D. Cultural neuroscience: Progress and promise. Psychological Inquiry, 2013, Vol. 24 (1), pp. 1-19. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2013.752715
  18. Sasaki J. Y., Kim H. S. Nature, nurture, and their interplay: A review of cultural neuroscience. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2017, vol. 48 (1), pp. 4-22. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0022022116680481
  19. Kitayama Sh., Jiyoung P. Cultural neuroscience of the self: Understanding the social grounding of the brain. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2010, vol. 5, pp. 111-129. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq052
  20. Rule N. O., Krendl A. C., Ivcevic Z., Ambady N. Accuracy and consensus in judgments of trustworthiness from faces: Behavioral and neural correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2013, vol. 104 (3). pp. 409-426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031050
  21. Schwartz S. H. Individualism-collectivism: Critique and proposed refinements. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1990, vol. 21 (2), pp. 139-157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022190212001
  22. Giacobbe-Miller J. K., Miller D. J., Zhang W., Victorov V. I. Country and organizational-level adaptation to foreign workplace ideologies: A comparative study of distributive justice values in China, Russia and the United States. Journal of International Business Studies, 2003, vol. 34 (4), pp. 389-406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400040
  23. Naumov A. I., Puffer S. M. Measuring Russian culture using Hofstede's dimensions. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 2000, vol. 49 (4), pp. 709-718. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00041
  24. Knyazev G. G., Savostyanov A. N., Bocharov A. V., Merkulova E. A. Resting state connectivity mediates the relationship between collectivism and social cognition. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2018, vol. 123, pp. 17-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.12.002
  25. Chuang Y. S., Su Y. S., Goh J. O. S. Neural responses reveal associations between personal values and value-based decisions. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2020, vol. 15 (11), pp. 1217-1227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaa150
Date of the publication 30.04.2025