Ps)Chological Bulletin Copyright I986b> the American Ps>thological Association. Inc.

1986, Vol. 100. No. 1.78-100 0033-2909/86/S00.75

Gaze and Eye Contact: A Research Review

Chris L. Kleinke
University of Alaska, Anchorage

Research on gaze and eye contact was organized within the framework of Patterson's (1982) sequen-
tial functional model of nonverbal exchange. Studies were reviewed showing how gaze functions to
(a) provide information, (b) regulate interaction, (c) express intimacy, (d) exercise social control,
and (e) facilitate service and task goals. Research was also summarized that describes personal,
experiential, relational, and situational antecedents of gaze and reactions to gaze. Directions were
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

given for a functional analysis of the relation between gaze and physiological responses. Attribution
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

theories were integrated into the sequential model for making predictions about people's perceptions
of their own gazing behavior and the gazing behavior of others. Data on people's accuracy in report-
ing their own and others' gaze were presented and integrated with related findings in attribution
research. The sequential model was used to analyze research studies measuring the interaction be-
tween gaze and personal and contextual variables. Methodological and measurement issues were
discussed and directions were outlined for future research.

These lovely lamps, these windows of the soul. (Du Bartas) 1
The eyes have one language everywhere. (George Herbert)
There are often voice and words in a silent look. (Ovid)
For eyes can speak and eyes can understand. (Chapman)
The area of "gaze research" has been plagued by the accumulation
of miscellaneous empirical bits and facts, replete with ad hoc (and
often post hoc) interpretations of specific outcomes. There have
been complaints that the field cannot really go anywhere unless it
is attached to the broader domain of non-verbal communication or
linked up with relevant theories of interaction and communication.

The significance of the eyes in human relationships has fasci-

nated writers and philosophers for centuries. Tomkins (1963)
provided an historical review of writings on this topic from the
times of ancient civilizations. Other writers who are acknowl-
edged for their insightful descriptions of human visual interac-
tions include Goffman (1964), Ortega y Gasset (1957), Sartre
(1942/1956), and Simmel (1921). As a topic in psychological
research, human visual behavior is relatively new. Eye contact
did not appear as a reference in Psychological Abstracts until
1966, and there were only 13 references to eye contact between
1966 and 1972. During these years, the publication of several
classic articles set the stage for a burgeoning interest in eye con-
tact research (Argyle & Dean, 1965; Ellsworth & Carlsmith,
1968; Exline, 1963, 1971; Kendon. 1967). In 1973, there were
31 references to eye contact in Psychological Abstracts and in
1978 the number reached 67. Research on visual behavior con-
tinues to appear in the psychological literature at a steady rate
and research reviews on this topic during the past 10 years have
contained an ever-increasing number of citations (Argyle &
Cook, 1976; Ellsworth & Ludwig, 1972; Harper, Wiens, & Ma-
tarazzo, 1978; Kleinke. 1975; Knapp, 1978).
This review is presented to bring the research literature on
human visual behavior up-to-date and to analyze theoretical
issues and research directions that have become important dur-
ing the last several years. The current state of research on hu-
man visual behavior was aptly described by an anonymous re-
viewer of this article:
I am grateful to Betty J. House for her helpful editorial comments.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Chris
L. Kleinke, Psychology Department, University of Alaska, Anchorage.
Alaska 99508.
Because of the need for systematizing gaze and eye contact re-
search into a theoretical context (see Kleinke, 1972), this will be
a major goal of this article. Patterson's (1982, 1983) sequential
model of nonverbal exchange offers the most promising frame-
work for this task and is used to provide the structure for this
review. Patterson's (1976) intimacy-arousal model is also dis-
cussed and evaluated. An attributional approach is presented
for studying gaze and eye contact, within the context of the se-
quential model and in relation to self-awareness of one's own
gazing behavior and awareness of gaze by others. Because the
sequential model is new, the organization of gaze and eye con-
tact studies within this model is a matter of judgment, and some
flexibility is needed to fit the myriad gaze and eye contact stud-
ies into this article. In preparation for the following review of
gaze and eye contact research, it will be useful to consider some
definitions and measurement issues.
Some Definitions
Harper etal. (1978, p. 173) outlined a number of definitions
of visual behavior that were originally suggested by von Cra-
nach (1971). Face-gaze is the direction of one person's gaze at
another's face, and eye-gaze is the direction of one's gaze at an-
other's eyes. Mutual gaze refers to two people gazing at each
other's faces, and eye contact defines two people gazing at each
other's eyes. Looking and gazing refer more generally to a gaze
in the direction of another's face. Gaze avoidance is defined as
intentional avoidance of eye contact and gaze omission is de-
fined as a failure to look without the intention of avoiding eye
contact. Staring is defined as a gaze or look that persists regard-
1
This and the following quotations are from Stevenson (1967).

78
 GAZE AND EYE CONTACT
less of the behavior of the other person (Ellsworth, Carlsmith,
& Henson, 1972). As I show later, these definitions require more
accuracy than is present in most research studies because it is
relatively difficult for people to discriminate between face-gaze
and eye contact. In this review, therefore, gaze, looking, glance.
and staring imply the direction of one's gaze toward another's
face and (possibly) eyes.2 Mutual ga:e and eye contact imply
that two people are simultaneously looking at each other's face
and (possibly) eyes.
Measurement Issues
Discussions about gaze measurement by Argyle and Cook
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(1976), Exline and Fehr (1982), and Harper el al. (1978) allow
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
us to arrive at the following recommendations and conclusions.
Parameters of Gaze
The most common procedure for measuring gaze in an ex-
perimental setting is to have two or more observers behind a
one-way mirror press buttons connected to clocks and counters
or to recording pens when one person directs his or her gaze
toward the face of another. Accuracy of recording can be en-
hanced by having interactants facing each other directly, by
placing observers directly behind receivers, by keeping the dis-
tance between interactants as small as possible, by testing the
visual acuity of observers, by training observers with feedback
trials, by using eye-level lighting to reduce eye shadows, by ob-
taining reliability estimates from all observers, and by schedul-
ing fatigue breaks (Exline & Fehr. 1982). Recordings of gaze
can also be made from films and videotapes. One camera and a
mirror or two cameras with a split screen can be used to simul-
taneously photograph two people, and accuracy can be en-
hanced by recording from slow motion or from individual
frames. Ga:e duration refers to the length (or percentage) of
time one person gazes at another and is the measure reported
in most studies. Gaze frequency refers to the number of glances
made by one person toward another. A measure of average
length of glances (glance duration) can be derived by dividing
gaze duration by gaze frequency (KJeinke, Desautels, & Knapp.
1977; Russo, 1975). Although glance duration is not indepen-
dent of gaze duration and gaze frequency, it is a measure worthy
of further study. For example. Russo (1975) concluded that
friendship and affiliation were more accurately reflected by mu-
tual glance duration than by mutual gaze duration.
Reliability
The preferred measure of interobserver reliability is the pro-
portion of agreement between observers on the presence or ab-
sence of gaze (Argyle & Cook. 1976; Exline, 1963). Researchers
have reported proportions of agreement on gaze recordings
ranging from .66 to .94 (Argyle & Cook, 1976, p. 40; Duncan
&Fiske, 1977, chap. 4). Lower reliabilities occur when interob-
server agreement is measured in time intervals less than I s,
when interactants are relatively far apart (roughly more than 3
m), and when the head of the gazing person is at an angle
(roughly greater than 30°) from the face of the recipient. Argyle
and Cook (1976, p. 41) concluded that trained observers work-
ing under good viewing conditions can make highly reliable
79
measurements of gaze. However, it appears that outside of very
special viewing conditions, the discrimination between eye-
gaze and face-gaze is not easily made (Argyle & Cook, 1976. p.
41; Harper etal., 1978. p. 177).
Validity
Studies comparing recordings of gaze by observers with re-
cordings made by recipients have found agreement proportions
ranging from .68 to .99 (Argyle & Cook, 1976, p. 45; Harper et
al.. 1978, p. 178). Validity, like reliability, varies with length of
measurement interval, distance between interactants, and head
angle of the gazing person. Rime and McCusker (1976) found
that measurements of gaze through a one-way mirror were less
accurate than measurements of gaze from television. F. C. Har-
ris and Ciminero (1978) cautioned that observers in gaze rein-
forcement studies should be trained to attend only to the gazing
behavior under study and to disregard cues (e.g., positive rein-
forcement) that may bias them to record gaze when it did not
occur. Thayer (1977) reported that youngchildren are less accu-
rate in discriminating on-face and off-face gaze than adults. Ar-
gyle and Cook (1976, p. 47) and Harper et al. (1978, p. 178)
concluded that under ordinary conditions, the agreement about
gaze by observers and recipients is good. Recipients, like ob-
servers, find it difficult to discriminate between eye-gaze and
lace-gaze (Argyle & Cook. 1976, p. 47: Harper et al., 1978,
p. 177).
Correlations With Other Behaviors
People's gazing behaviors do not correlate highly with their
verbal ratings. Breed and Porter (1972) and Goldberg, Kiesler,
and Collins (1969) reported small positive correlations between
gaze and positive affective ratings. A tabulation of correlations
between rating form responses and measures of gaze frequency
and duration in the following studies yielded a proportion of
statistically significant correlations equal to chance (KJeinke et
al.. 1977; KJeinke, Staneski, & Berger, 1975; KJeinke, Staneski,
& Pipp. 1975; KJeinke & Walton. 1982; Walsh, Meister, &
KJeinke, 1977). Correlations between gaze and verbal ratings
may be low because people are generally not aware of their gaz-
ing behaviors in an interaction. It is recommended later that
researchers assess self-awareness of gaze as well as perceived
gaze from others.
Factor analysis research also indicates that gaze is relatively
independent of other behaviors. Wellens and Faletti (1978) re-
ported one factor for verbal liking and a second factor for non-
verbal behaviors (smiling, talking, gazing, distancing; see also
Latta, 1976). Staneski and KJeinke (1978) factor-analyzed data
from four experiments that included verbal ratings, gaze fre-
quency and duration, seating distance, amount of talking, and
heart rate. In general, each of these measures was identified as
an independent factor. Staneski and KJeinke (1978) also com-
puted multiple regressions using nonverbal behaviors to predict
participants' ratings of liking for a person with whom they were
interacting. Men tended to like the other person when their own
talking level was high and when their gazing was low. Women.
• See KJrkland and Lewis (1976) for a discussion of words denoting
eye fixation.
 80 CHRIS L. KLEINKE
in contrast, expressed more liking when their own talking level
was low and their gazing was high. Because the multiple corre-
lations were low and limited in generality by small sample sizes
and confounding by various experimental treatments, further
research on this issue is needed. A worthwhile study would be
one using people's levels of gaze to predict their ratings of liking
for others in positive, neutral, and negative contexts (see Bayes,
!972;Lochman&Allen, 1981: Shrout & Fiske, 1981).
Functional Classification
Patterson's (1982, 1983) sequential model is based on the
premise that patterns of nonverbal interaction are moderated
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
by the meaning or function of the nonverbal behaviors being
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
exchanged. In laying the groundwork for the sequential model,
Patterson developed a functional classification for nonverbal be-
haviors based on classifications advanced by Argyle (1972), Ek-
man and Friesen (1969), and Kendon (1967). The functional
categories proposed by Patterson are those of (a) providing in-
formation, (b) regulating interaction, (c) expressing intimacy,
(d) exercising social control, and (e) facilitating service or task
goals. These functional categories are used here to organize a
large number of independently conducted gaze and eye contact
studies. Because gazing behaviors can concurrently serve more
than one function (Patterson, 1982, p. 234), the following func-
tional classification is necessarily subjective. For practical rea-
sons, studies are not further subdefined according to whether
they used an encoding or decoding methodology (Harper et al.,
1978.chap. I).
Providing Information
The majority of studies summarized in this section focused
on judgments made (information gained) about people based
on their gazing behaviors. Gaze influences evaluations of liking
and attraction, attentiveness, competence, social skills and
mental health, credibility, and dominance. Patterson (1982) de-
fines informative nonverbal behaviors as being either communi-
cative or indicative. Communicative behaviors are motivated by
a goal or purpose. Indicative behaviors are not. Because the
identification of a goal or purpose for another person's gaze is
often subjective. I do not distinguish between studies of com-
municative gaze and studies of indicative gaze in this review.
However, the reader may wish to keep this distinction in mind
because the perception and interpretation of intentions and mo-
tives for gaze are relevant to theories of attribution that are dis-
cussed later.
Liking and allraclion. A number of studies have indicated
that people use gaze as a sign of liking and attraction when ob-
serving social interactions. People in photographs (Lim, 1972;
Mehrabian, I968a; Scherer & Schiff, 1973) and videotapes
(KJeinke, Meeker, & La Fong, 1974; Naiman & Breed, 1974;
Thayer & Schiff. 1974) appear to like each other more when
they share a relatively high rather than low amount of gaze. Men
and women were viewed as sharing more sexual interest when
their mutual gaze was high rather than low (Thayer & Schiff,
1977). The positive feelings associated with gaze generalize to
observers, who favor people when they gaze at moderate rather
than low levels while approaching others (Gary. 1978a) or in
social interactions (Abele, 1981; Shrout & Fiske, 1981).
The association between gaze and liking appears to be
learned. Children do not use eye contact to judge affiliation and
friendship until about age 6 (Abramovitch & Daly, 1978; Post
& Hetherington, 1974). Girls make this discrimination at a
younger age than boys.
Gaze also influences people's liking for each other, with mod-
erate amounts of gaze generally preferred over constant or no
gaze (Argyle, Lefebvre, & Cook, 1974; Exline, 1971). Gary
(1978b) and Kendon and Ferber (1973) observed that people
use gaze as a cue for deciding whether to pursue conversations
with one another.
Several studies found that gaze enhances attraction and liking
when people are introduced in a social interaction. Participants
in a study by Stass and Willis (1967) chose to work with a con-
federate who gazed at them during their introduction. Research
participants evaluated each other more favorably when the ex-
perimenter seated them facing each other to facilitate mutual
gaze (Scherer, 1974). British college students rated a same-sex
peer they met in an experiment as more pleasant and less ner-
vous when the person gazed at them continuously rather than
not at all (Cook & Smith. 1975). Gazing confederates in a study
by Exline and Eldridge (1967) received more favorable evalua-
tions than nongazing confederates when they communicated a
positive message.
Attentiveness. Interviewers are evaluated by interviewees as
more attentive when their gaze is relatively high rather than low
(Breed, 1972; Kelly, 1978; KJeinke, Staneski, & Berger, 1975).
Interviewees give briefer responses when an interviewer does
not gaze at them (Aiello, 1977a; KJeinke, Staneski, & Berger,
1975). Gazing people are also viewed as more attentive during
social encounters (KJeinke, Bustos, Meeker, & Staneski, 1973;
KJeinke. Staneski, & Pipp, 1975). Women rated male dating
partners as silent, passive, and inattentive when they gave low
levels of gaze during a role-playing interaction (Lochman & Al-
len, 1981). Men's ratings were not influenced by their date's
gazing behavior during the role-playing interaction. Norton and
Pettegrew (1979) reported a positive correlation between self-
ratings of attentiveness and willingness to gaze toward other
people.
Competence. Researchers have determined that interviewers
(Sodikoff, Firestone, & Kaplan. 1974), experimenters (Le-
Compte & Rosenfeld, 1971), and speakers (Beebe, 1974) are
more favorably evaluated when they engage in high rather than
low levels of gaze toward their audience. Participants in a study
by Neely, Cherulnik, and Russ (1977) felt less comfortable
when an interviewer gazed 50% rather than 100% or 0°o of the
time. This was possibly because the 50% gaze was cued ran-
domly and might have appeared unnatural.
Wheeler, Baron, Michell, and Ginsburg (1979) reported a
positive correlation between an interviewee's eye contact with
an interviewer and estimates made by observers of the inter-
viewee's intelligence. High school students in a study by KJeck
and Nuessle (1968) evaluated an interviewee in a film more fa-
vorably (but also as more tense) when the interviewee gazed at
the interviewer 80% rather than 15% of the time. Job applicants
were evaluated more favorably when they gazed at the inter-
viewer during an employment interview (Forbes & Jackson,
1980;Imada&Hakel, !977;Tessler&Sushelsky, 1978). People
in photographs were judged as more deserving of a job or a
higher salary when they gazed straight ahead rather than when
 GAZE AND EYE CONTACT
they gazed downward (Amalfitano & Kalt, 1977; Tankard,
1970).
Several studies have been conducted in which research par-
ticipants evaluated counselors in videotapes when they gazed at
their clients a low, moderate, or large amount of the time (Fretz,
Com, Tuemmler. & Bellet, 1979; Haase & Tepper, 1972; Kelly
& True. 1980; LaCrosse, 1975; Tipton & Rymer, 1978). Most
favorable ratings were given to counselors when they directed
the highest amounts of gaze toward their clients and least favor-
able ratings were given when counselors engaged in the lowest
amounts of gaze toward their clients.3
Social skills and menial health. Gazing behavior has been
defined as a component of assertiveness (Romano & Bellack,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
1980) and social skills (Bellack, Hersen, & Lamparski, 1979;
Bellack, Hersen, & Turner, 1978, 1979; Conger &Farrell, 1981;
Glasgow & Arkowitz. 1975: Greenwald. 1977). Low levels of
gaze in therapeutic interviews communicate noninvolvement
and are implicated in judgments of depression (Waxer, 1974)
and mental illness (Mancuso. Litchford, Wilson. Harrigan, &
Lehrer, 1983).
Credibility. The common belief thai it is difficult to lie when
looking into someone's eyes is reflected by credibility judg-
ments. A witness in a videotaped courtroom trial was judged as
more credible when he did not avert his gaze from the attorney
who was questioning him (Hemsley & Doob. 1978). Airline
travelers were more likely to be perceived as suspicious and suit-
able for search if they avoided eye contact while being ques-
tioned by an inspector in a mock customs inspection (Kraut &
Poe. 1980).
Dominance. Exline (1971) and Ellsworth (1975) described
how gaze is used to communicate threat and dominance. In ac-
cordance with these observations, British college students asso-
ciated potency and power most strongly with continuous gaze
and least strongly with no gaze (Argyle et al., 1974). J. A. Gra-
ham and Argyle (1975) found that gaze had greatest influence
on ratings of "potency," and that facial expressions had greatest
influence on ratings of "evaluation." Gaze and facial expres-
sions both contributed to ratings of activity. Hillabrant (1974)
manipulated gaze between two men in a videotaped interaction
and Thayer (1969) manipulated gaze between two men in a live
encounter. Men in both situations were evaluated as being more
dominant when their gaze was high rather than low. Dovidio
and Ellyson (1982) reported that high gazing-while-speaking ra-
tios were directly related to ratings of power in an interaction.
Communicating feelings. Gaze appears to communicate the
intensity but not the valence of feelings. Kimble and Olszewski
(1980) and KJmble, Forte, and Yoshikawa (1981) asked re-
search participants to communicate positive and negative feel-
ings so they would be interpreted as weak or strong. Participants
gazed more when communicating strong feelings than when
communicating weak feelings. This was true whether or not the
feeling was positive or negative.
Summary. All of the studies in this section except those on
communicating feelings focused on evaluations given to people
as a function of their gazing behaviors. These studies did not
manipulate contextual and motivational factors that moderate
judgments of gazing behaviors. Their conclusions are, there-
fore, relevant primarily for situations in which we are making
more or less objective observations of others. Gaze is used to
gain information about liking and attraction, attentiveness,
81
competence, social skills and mental health, credibility, and
dominance. Gaze also serves to express the intensity of feelings.
The conditions under which gaze-intensified feelings satisfy in-
timacy versus social control functions should be outlined in fu-
ture research.
Regulating Interaction
Research reviews on nonverbal regulation of human interac-
tion indicate that linguistic, paralinguistic, and kinesic vari-
ables play a role in conversational sequencing (Feldstein & Wel-
kowitz, 1978;Rosenfeld. 1978). The operation of visual behav-
ior in regulating interactions was discussed by Argyle and Cook
(1976) and Harper et al. (1978). Two relevant research areas
identified by these authors are synchronization and regulation.
Synchronization. Kendon (1967) reported a perfect rank-or-
der correlation between rate of gaze shifts in two-person con-
versations and a .81 correlation between interactants' length of
gaze. Condon (1980) and his colleagues observed synchroniza-
tion between verbal and kinesic behaviors (including eye move-
ments) of normal adults. Behavior synchronization was not
present to the same degree in schizophrenic adults and autistic
children.
Regulation. Kendon's (1967) phrase-by-phrase analysis of
two-person interactions indicated that speakers ended an utter-
ance with a prolonged gaze to communicate that it was the lis-
tener's turn to speak. Levine and Sutton-Smith (1973) found
that adults (but not children) ended an utterance with a gaze
and also began an utterance with a gaze. They concluded that
gaze aversion before an utterance is useful for collecting one's
thoughts (encoding speech) and that gaze after an utterance is a
means for receiving feedback. Duncan (1972) identified a head
turn in the direction of the listener as a "turn-yielding" cue and
Duncan and Niederehe (1974) described a head turn by a lis-
tener away from a speaker as a sign of the listener's intention to
speak. Knapp, Hart, Fredrich, and Shulman (1973) observed
that breaking eye contact was a reliable occurrence at the com-
pletion of an interview.
It has been widely reported that people gaze more while lis-
tening than while speaking (Argyle & Cook, 1976, chap. 5;
Duncan & Fiske. 1977, chap. 5; KJeinke. Staneski, & Berger,
1975; KJeinke, Staneski, & Pipp, 1975). However, there are
some qualifications. Equivalent amounts of gazing while speak-
ing and listening were found with research participants who
were given high status or who were discussing issues on which
they had expertise (Ellyson, Dovidio, & Corson, 1981; Ellyson,
Dovidio, Corson. & Vinicur. 1980). LaFrance & Mayo (1976)
observed that black Americans looked more when speaking and
less when listening.
Summary. There is evidence of synchronization between
gaze and other behaviors and of the regulatory function of gaze
as a turn-taking cue. Recent studies, however, suggest that gaze
synchronization and the operation of gaze in turn taking are
less reliable than previously believed because they depend on
the context and motives of the interactants (Beattie, 1978, 1979;
J
These results can be contrasted with data for talking levels suggest-
ing that people prefer others who talk 50% of the time in social interac-
tions, whereas they favor counselors who talk 33% of the lime in a coun-
selingsession(KJeinke,Kahn.&Tully, 1979; KJeinke &Tully, 1979).
 82 CHRIS L. KLEINKE
Kendon, 1978; Lazzerini, Stephenson, & Neave. 1978: Rutter,
Stcphenson, Ayling, & White. 1978; Rutter. Stephenson. Laz-
zerini, Ayling, & White, 1977). Studies of race and status have
also qualified earlier findings that people gaze more while listen-
ing than while speaking. Because gaze operates w i t h i n a com-
munication system, its function as a regulator cannot be studied
in isolation (Duncan & Fiske, 1977, chap. 11; Kendon. 1978).
The function of gaze in regulating interactions will be better
understood when the influence of context and personal factors
(e.g.. race, status, and motives) are delineated. This is one of the
purposes of the sequential model.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Expressing Intimacy
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Patterson (1982) views the expression of intimacy as a spon-
taneous affective reaction that can be contrasted with the self-
conscious, managed social control and service-task functions of
nonverbal behaviors.
One example of intimacy expression is found in studies
showing that gazing behavior increases as a function of positive
attraction. Mehrabian (I968a, 1968b) reported that research
participants gazed more when they approached an imaginary
person they liked rather than disliked. Participants in a study
by Griffitt, May, and Veitch (1974) gazed more at opposite-sex
peers when they had previously been exposed to sexually arous-
ing slides. Another example of intimacy expression comes from
studies in which people gazed more after receiving positive eval-
uations (Coutts, Schneider, & Montgomery, 1980; Exline &
Winters, 1965; Walsh etal., 1977) or warm nonverbal responses
(Ho & Mitchell, 1982).
Summary. People gaze more when they share feelings of
warmth and liking. However, high levels of gaze do not always
indicate intimacy and liking (Patterson. 1982, p. 236). The chal-
lenge for researchers is to outline conditions under which gaze
expresses (or is viewed as expressing) intimacy. The stages of
intimacy described by the social penetration model may shed
light on this question (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Patterson (1982,
p. 245) suggests that gaze functions most commonly to express
intimacy in unstructured and nonevaluative interactions. It will
be useful to determine how aware people are of when they give
or receive gaze that is motivated by feelings of intimacy.
Social Control
The social control function of gaze is viewed by Patterson
(1982, 1983) as primarily communicative because it is directed
toward a goal or purpose. Researchers have investigated the
functions of gaze in persuasion and deception, ingratiation,
threat and dominance, escape and avoidance, and compliance.
Persuasion and deception. People tend to increase their gaze
when attempting to be persuasive and deceptive. Mehrabian
and Williams (1969) and Timney and London (1973) found
that research participants gave relatively high amounts of gaze
when they were instructed to be persuasive. College students
gazed more at counselors (Sitton & Griffin, 1981) and inter-
viewers (Burns &Kintz, 1976; Riggio& Friedman, I983)when
intentionally giving false answers to their questions. Research
participants gazed more while lying to a person who could de-
liver an electric shock when detecting deceit (Mehrabian, 1971).
Ingratiation. People gaze more when they are seeking friend-
ship or attempting to ingratiate themselves with others. College
women gazed more at a female confederate when they were try-
ing to make friends (Pellegrini, Hicks, & Gordon, 1970), and
college men gazed more at a woman when they wanted to inter-
est her in a social conversation (Lefebvre, 1975).
Threat and dominance. Researchers have demonstrated that
gaze functions to communicate threat and dominance during
conversations, during defense of personal space, in situations
with aggression and anger, and when role-playing assertiveness.
In conversations, Exline, EUyson, and Long (1975) determined
that people exert dominance by gazing while speaking. Gazing
while listening appears to serve an information gathering func-
tion. Hughes and Goldman (1978) reported that men and
women were less likely to violate the personal space of a man
who was standing in front of the buttons in an elevator when
the man was staring at them. Men, but not women, were also
less likely to violate the personal space of a staring woman.
When given the choice, men were equally likely to violate the
space of gazing men and gazing women (Buchanan, Goldman,
& Juhnke, 1977). Women preferred to violate the space of a
gazing woman. Ellsworth and Carlsmith (1973) found that col-
lege men were less likely to deliver electric shocks to a male
confederate who had angered them when the confederate gazed
at them constantly. College men delivered more shocks to a gaz-
ing confederate when his gaze was not constant and when it
appeared that the shocks would make him gaze less. Male psy-
chiatric patients gazed at each other more when role-playing
assertive responses to negative situations (Eisler, Hersen, Miller,
&Blanchard, 1975).
College men were not any more or less competitive when
playing a two-person game with a male confederate who gazed
at them constantly rather than not at all (Klcinkc & Pohlen,
1971). The confederate's gazing behavior did, however, influ-
ence the men's affective evaluations. Men rated a very competi-
tive confederate as most friendly and cooperative when he
gazed. It is possible that the competitive confederate appeared
more "upfront" and candid when he gazed. The constantly gaz-
ing and competitive confederate might have also intimidated
participants into giving ratings that were socially desirable.
Gaze aversion has been shown to communicate submissive-
ness and appeasement. Participants in a study by M. G. Efran
and Cheyne (1974) averted their gaze when following an experi-
menter's instructions to intrude on the shared space of two con-
federates. Reduced gaze between dating partners who role-
played conflicts was correlated with behaviors of disapproval
and expressions of lower interpersonal power (Lochman & Al-
len, 1981). Gaze aversion can also be used to assert oneself with-
out the risk of expressing threat and dominance. For example,
J. Z. Rubin, Steinberg, and Gerrein (1974) determined that
gaze aversion is used at a contested traffic intersection as a tactic
for gaining the right of way.
Escape and avoidance. Prolonged and unexplained gaze can
function as a stimulus for eliciting escape and avoidance. Ells-
worth et al., (1972) and Greenbaum and Rosenfeld (1978) had
experimenters stand on street corners and gaze constantly or
not at all at pedestrians and motorists who were waiting for a
red light. When the light changed to green, pedestrians and driv-
ers crossed the intersection significantly faster when they had
received constant gaze from the experimenter. Other examples
of escape and avoidance are found in the following studies. Stu-
 GAZE AND EYE CONTACT
dents in a college library remained in their seats for shorter peri-
ods of time when they were confronted by an experimenter who
sat at their table and stared at them (B. J. Smith, Sanford, &
Goldman, 1977). Worshippers in church pews were more likely
to make space for someone who stared at them (Campbell &
Lancioni, 1979).
The escape response to staring appears at early developmen-
tal levels. Retarded adults responded to a threatening stare with
avoidance behaviors of averting gaze and turning away (Bailey.
Tipton, & Taylor, 1977). The authors of this study suggested
that profoundly retarded adults had shorter avoidance latencies
than mildly retarded adults because of high sensitivity to phylo-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
genetically conditioned releasing stimuli. Field (1981) con-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
cluded that infants avoid prolonged gaze as a reaction to height-
ened arousal.
Ellsworth et al. (1972) conceptualized the stare as a demand
for a response. People are motivated to move away from a
stranger who is staring when the meaning of the stare is ambigu-
ous and no other appropriate response is available. If a staring
stranger is appealing or has other favorable attributes, a cogni-
tive assessment of this staring behavior can result in favorable
responses. For example, pedestrians did not cross the street as
fast to escape a staring experimenter when the experimenter
was dressed and made up to be physically attractive (Kmiecik,
Mausar, & Banziger, 1979). People were also less likely to avoid
a staring experimenter when the experimenter smiled (Elman,
Schulte. & Bukoff. 1977). In a similar vein, time appeared to
pass more quickly for research participants who engaged in con-
tinuous eye contact with a confederate who was smiling rather
than scowling (Thayer & SchifT. 1975).
Compliance. Research on gaze and compliance extends the
above conclusions about escape and avoidance by delineating
the importance of how gaze is perceived in terms of ambiguity
and appropriateness. People comply more to requests from gaz-
ing rather than nongazing experimenters in situations in which
gaze is interpreted positively and serves to bring the experi-
menter psychologically closer. For example, KJeinke (1977) and
Brockner. Pressman, Cabitt. and Moran (1982) reported that
people were more willing to return "misplaced" dimes and
more willing to lend dimes to gazing rather than nongazing ex-
perimenters. People were also more willing to accept leaflets
(KJeinke & Singer. 1979) and to give charitable contributions
(Bull & Gibson-Robinson, 1981) or a nickel for five pennies
(Ernest & Cooper, 1974) when an experimenter was gazing.
Drivers were more likely to stop for gazing hitchhikers (M. Sny-
der, Grether, & Keller. 1974), pedestrians were more likely to
help a gazing experimenter pick up dropped coins (Valentine,
1980) and dropped questionnaires (Goldman & Fordyce,
1983), and bystanders were more likely to help an injured gaz-
ing jogger (Shetland & Johnson, 1978). Research participants
were more willing to change their attitude expression when they
received social reinforcement from a gazing rather than nongaz-
ing interviewer (Goldman. 1980).
In situations in which an experimenter's gaze is interpreted
negatively or viewed as inappropriate, one would expect less
compliance under conditions of gaze rather than no gaze. Pas-
sengers on a subway train were less likely to help an experi-
menter who stared at them between stops and research partici-
pants were less willing to help a confederate who had stared
83
at them while they were working on a puzzle (Reis & Werner,
1974).
Ellsworth and Langer (1976) compared the effects of staring
in an ambiguous and unambiguous context. In the unambigu-
ous context, women shoppers were approached by a female ex-
perimenter who pointed to a female confederate and said that
she had lost a contact lens and needed assistance. In the ambigu-
ous context, the experimenter said that the female confederate
looked ill and needed help. When it was clear to shoppers what
sort of help the confederate needed, they were more likely to
assist her when she gazed at them constantly rather than not at
all. When the confederate's need was ambiguous, shoppers were
more likely to offer assistance when she did not gaze at them.
KJeinke (1980) compared the effects of gaze on compliance
with requests that were either legitimate or illegitimate. People
in an airport were approached by a gazing or nongazing female
experimenter who asked them for a dime. In the legitimate con-
dition, the experimenter explained that she needed the dime to
call someone to pick her up. In the illegitimate condition, the
experimenter explained that she wanted to buy gum or a candy
bar. When the request was legitimate, more people gave dimes
to gazing experimenters. When the request was illegitimate,
more people gave di mes to nongazing experimenters. It was sug-
gested that gaze aversion during the legitimate request might
have helped the experimenter come across as humble and
tactful.
Summary. People use gaze to exert social control when at-
tempting to be persuasive and deceptive, ingratiating, and when
directly exerting threat and dominance. Whether someone re-
sponds to gaze by escapi ng or complying depends on the context
and on his or her perceptions of the gazing person's motives.
Patterson (1982, 1983) defines gaze in a social control function
as managed, intentional, and situational. It would be useful to
determine how aware or mindful people are of when they use
gaze for exerting social control. Patterson also suggests that gaze
in a social control function is maintained until it achieves its
intended purpose. Managed gaze may, therefore, often exceed
the limits of comfort or appropriateness in an interaction and
result in an unstable exchange.
Service Task
Patterson (1982, 1983) distinguishes service-task functions
from intimacy and social control functions by pointing out that
service-task functions apply more to the goals and outcomes of
an interaction than to its intimacy or affective quality. To the
degree that this is true, gaze in a service-task function is less
likely to be subject to cognitive-affective assessment of its causes
and motives. Researchers have investigated two general service-
task functions of gaze: information seeking and facilitation of
communication in interpersonal relations, learning situations,
and bargaining. In accordance with Patterson's distinction,
studies of gaze in a service-task function measured task and
outcome rather than attributions and affect. However, in all hu-
man interactions people will potentially make judgments about
one another. Gaze in a service-task function that violates norms
or expectations is as likely as any gaze to result in an unstable
exchange and cognitive-affective assessment.
Information seeking. Gaze is used for seeking information
about personal evaluations. For example, Walsh et al. (1977)
 84 CHRIS L. KLEINKE
explained their finding that women gazed more at men who
gave negative rather than neutral evaluations on the basis of the
women's motive to search for the cause of the negative evalua-
tion. This explanation might also be relevant for Coutts et al.'s
(1980) research participants who increased their gaze after re-
ceiving negative reactions and nonverbal immediacy from a
confederate. In a similar vein, Exline and Messick (1967) and
Burton, McGregor, and Berry (1979) viewed the increased gaze
given by dependent people toward a nonreinforcing experi-
menter as a reflection of their need for information and feed-
back.
Information seeking was also demonstrated by increased
gaze toward physically attractive people. College men in studies
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
by Kleck and Rubenstein (1975) and Fugita, Agle, Newman,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
and Walfish (1977) gazed more at college women who were
dressed and made up to be attractive. College men in studies by
KJeinke, Staneski, and Berger (1975) and KJeinke, Staneski,
and Pipp (1975) did not gaze more at college women who had
been categorized by judges as high or low in physical attractive-
ness. The differences in attractiveness in the first studies were
probably more extreme than in the second studies. Coutts and
Schneider (1975) reported positive correlations between gaze
directed by research participants toward opposite-sex peers and
experimenter ratings of the peers' physical attractiveness.
Two additional examples of information seeking are found in
the following studies. First, people gazed more when they were
given unconfirmed expectancies about an impending interac-
tion (Ickes, Patterson, Rajecki. & Tanford, 1982). Second, be-
cause strangers looked at each other more (while listening) dur-
ing a task-oriented interaction than did friends, it was con-
cluded that gaze during this situation serves more as a means
of collecting information than as a method for expressing affect
(Rutter&Stephenson, 1979).
Langer. Fiske, Taylor, and Chanowitz (1976) formulated a
novel-stimulus hypothesis to account for the conflict people ex-
perience when they want to look at others who are different but
feel uncomfortable because it is not socially acceptable to do
so. The hypothesis was supported in an experiment showing
that research participants gazed more at novel (crippled or
pregnant) versus normal people when their gazing behavior was
unobserved. Participants gazed less at novel versus normal peo-
ple when their gazing behavior was observed. KJeck (1968) re-
ported similar results in a study showing that participants gazed
more at a confederate when the confederate had been made up
to look like an amputee. Research participants gazed more at a
person in a wheelchair when interaction with the person was
not anticipated and gazed less when interaction was anticipated
(Thompson, 1982). Participants in a study by KJeck et al.
(1968) did not gaze more at a confederate who was described
as having epilepsy but who did not have a novel appearance.
Interpersonal interactions. Gaze enhances people's comfort
during interpersonal interactions when it facilitates communi-
cation. Several unpublished studies cited by Argyle and Cook
(1976, p. 152) indicated that office workers preferred face-to-
face communication over video or telephone communication,
especially for developing interpersonal relations. Research par-
ticipants who attempted to communicate with a person under
five conditions of visibility (normal, dark glasses, mask, one-
way mirror, no visibility) expressed more satisfaction as visibil-
ity increased (Argyle. Lalljee, & Cook, 1968).
Learning. A number of studies have shown that visual acces-
sibility contributes to the teaching-learning process. College
students performed better on a digit coding task when they re-
ceived instructions from a gazing rather than nongazing experi-
menter (Fry & Smith, 1975). Primary school children had
greater recall for stories that were read by a gazing rather than
nongazing teacher (Otteson & Otteson, 1980). Bloom (1975)
reported that adult gaze was important for stimulating vocal-
ization in young children, and Garcia and Trujillo (1977) dem-
onstrated the importance of experimenter gaze as part of a
training package for imitative responding in retarded children.
Verbal reprimands for disruptive behavior were more effective
when accompanied with gaze (Van Houten, Nau, MacKenzie-
Keating, Sameoto. & Colavecchia, 1982).
Gaze also facilitates student participation and satisfaction in
learning situations. For example, college students participated
more in a seminar when they could make eye contact with the
instructor (Caproni, Levine, O'Neal, McDonald. & Garwood,
1977). In a similar vein, Pedersen (1977) reported positive cor-
relations between eye contact availability with the instructor
and students' ratings of their performance and enjoyment in
a college class. Breed and Colaiuta (1974) found that college
instructors were better liked and produced superior student per-
formance when they gazed at students a relatively high rather
than low amount of time during their lectures.
Cooperation and bargaining. Gaze can foster cooperation by
facilitating the communication of positive intent. Participants
in one study preferred a seating arrangement permitting mutual
view of another person with whom they were cooperating (Jelli-
son & Ickes, 1974). Participants in another study engaged in
longer glances when playing a cooperative versus competitive
game(Foddy, 1978). A third group of studies found that people
negotiating from a position of strength were more likely to bar-
gain and compromise when they communicated face-to-face
rather than over a telephone (Morley & Stephenson, 1969,
1970a, 1970b). Other researchers reported that visual access fa-
cilitated cooperation in the Prisoner's Dilemma game (Gardin,
Kaplan. Firestone, & Cowan, 1973; Wichman, 1970).
One exception to gaze-facilitated cooperation occurs when
people use gaze to threaten one another. In this case, coopera-
tion is enhanced when a barrier is present to prevent visual ac-
cess (Carnevale. Pruitt. & Seilheimer, 1981; Lewis* Fry, 1977).
In a competitive situation, research participants preferred a
seating arrangement where they could see the other person but
the other person could not see them (Jellison & Ickes, 1974).
Summary. People generally get along better and communi-
cate more effectively when they look at each other. One excep-
tion is in bargaining interactions where cooperation can be un-
dermined when gaze is used for expressing dominance and
threat.
Although research investigating gaze in a service-task func-
tion has emphasized measures of task and outcome, the opera-
tion of cognitive-affective assessment should not be neglected.
For example, whereas people may solve tasks more effectively
with someone who gazes, they are also likely to form judgments
about that person's personality and motives. Similarly, although
novel people may recognize someone's gaze for its information-
seeking function, they still hold expectations about the amount
of gaze in a given context that is acceptable and appropriate.
The sequential model is therefore relevant to gaze in a service-
 GAZE AND EYE CONTACT
task function because it describes what happens when gaze vio-
lates a service-task script and results in an unstable interaction.
Antecedent Factors in the Sequential Model
As Patlerson (1982. 1983) pointed out, the preceding func-
tional classification provides a structure for analyzing gazing
behavior but it does not by itself account for the dynamics of
gaze as a function of individual and environmental variables.
That is why Patterson derived his sequential model, which out-
lines three stages of nonverbal interaction: antecedents, prein-
teraction mediators, and interaction phase. Antecedent factors
include personal, experiential, and relational-situational deter-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
minants of nonverbal involvement. A number of research stud-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ies have provided information about antecedents moderating
gaze and eye contact. A summary of these studies provides a
background for analyzing the dynamics of gaze and eye contact
(as a function of preinteraction mediators) during the interac-
tion phase of an encounter.
Personal Factors
The research studies covered in this section are difficult to
organize because they did not follow a theoretical structure.
Their results are the "miscellaneous empirical bits and facts"
alluded to at the beginning of this article. A summary of the
essential findings follows.
Age. Scaife and Bruner (1975) reported a steadily increasing
responsiveness to adult gaze by infants as they matured in age
from 2 to 14 months. Ashear and Snortum ( 1 9 7 1 ) found that
gaze toward a constantly gazing woman was highest for kinder-
garten and second-grade children, lower for preschool children,
and lowest for fifth- and eighth-grade children. The decreased
gaze of older children was attributed to heightened self-con-
sciousness while talking with adults. L. Harris (1968) measured
the gaze of younger (3-4.5 years) and older (4.5-5 years) pre-
school children toward nongazing male and female adults and
found that the gaze of younger children toward the woman was
higher than the gaze of all other children. This difference was
explained on the basis of the younger children's conditioned
dependency on the nurturance of women. Levine and Sutton-
Smith (1973) recorded gaze in natural interactions between
people in four age groups: 4-5 years, 6-9 years, 10-12 years,
and adult. Gazing increased from the first to the second age
group, decreased for the third age group, and increased to a
maximum for adults. They concluded that "many factors in-
fluence gazing at all ages, but the prepotency of these factors
varies with age" (p. 404). Adams and Kirkevold (1978) ob-
served no differences in gazing behavior at a fast food restaurant
by people in four age groups (under 12 years. 12-17 years, 18-
22 years, over 22 years). Muirhead and Goldman (1979) ob-
served different amounts (but no meaningful pattern) of mutual
gaze in various sex combinations of young, middle-aged, and
senior adults.
Scheman and Lockard (1979) conducted a developmental
study of gaze avoidance. Adult experimenters stared at children
in a shopping center and recorded whether children averted gaze
or engaged in eye contact. Compared with 5- to 9-year-old chil-
dren, children whose estimated ages were between 18 months
and 4 years were less likely to avert their gaze. It was suggested
85
that children may not learn to avoid gaze from others until after
they are 4- to 5-vears old because gaze from very young children
is accepted as an endearing behavior.
Se.\ differences in gazing. A review of research literature in-
dicates that females generally gaze more in social dyadic inter-
actions than males (Argyle & Cook. 1976, p. 147: Duncan &
Fiske, 1977, chap. 4: Harper et al., 1978, p. 216). These differ-
ences are found in children as well as adults. The fact that fe-
males often gaze more than males has been explained in terms
of sex roles, which influence females to be more affiliative, at-
tentive, and sensitive (Ellsworth & Ludwig, 1972: Frieze &
Ramsey, 1976).
It would be interesting to identify situations in which women
gaze less than men. Henley (1977) pointed out that women avert
their eyes more than men in encounters that are uncomfortable
and threatening. This observation was supported by Cary
(I978a), who found that male pedestrians responded to a star-
ing experimenter by gazing, whereas female pedestrians re-
sponded by averting their gaze. Schneider, Coutts, and Garrett
(1977) did not find sex differences in gazing behavior in triads.
Sex differences in reactions to gaze. Several studies have indi-
cated that women have more tolerance and more favorable reac-
tions than men when receiving gaze from others. For example,
women gave more help in picking up dropped coins to a female
experimenter who gazed at them (Valentine & Ehrlichman,
1979). Men gave more help to a male experimenter who did not
gaze at them. Kleinke et al. (1973) introduced college men and
women in pairs and left them in a room to get acquainted. After
their conversation, an experimenter told participants that one
person (whose gaze was supposedly recorded through a one-way
mirror) had gazed at the other person an unusually high, an
average, or an unusually low amount of the time. Women were
most favorable toward men whose gaze had ostensibly been
high. Women were also more favorable toward men when they
believed their own gaze had been high. Men's reactions were
exactly opposite. Men were most favorable toward women when
they were told the woman's gaze or their own gaze had been low.
Ellsworth and Ross (1975) introduced college students to each
other in same-sex pairs. One of the participants was assigned to
be a "speaker" and to give a self-description to the other partici-
pant, who was given the role of "listener." Listeners were se-
cretly instructed to give high levels of gaze or no gaze to the
speaker. Female speakers disclosed more personal information
about themselves to listeners who gazed. Female speakers also
liked gazing listeners more than nongazing listeners. Male
speakers, in contrast, disclosed more and felt greater liking
when the listener did not gaze.
Aiello (1972, I977a, I977b) elaborated the relationship be-
tween physical closeness and gazing by showing that men gazed
least at close interaction distances (2-5 ft) and increased their
gaze as interaction distances were lengthened to 6. 10. and 15
ft. Women gazed most at intermediate distances (around 6 ft)
and gazed less at closer as well as farther distances. Aiello con-
cluded that people seek levels of intimacy that will result in
greatest comfort. Women gazed most at intermediate seating
distances because that is where they apparently felt most com-
fortable. Men gazed most at far seating distances because that
is where they apparently felt most comfortable.
These sex differences in reactions to gaze might be inter-
preted in terms of sex role socialization (Mischel, 1970). The
 CHRIS L. K1EINKE
tendency for women to prefer higher levels of gaze from others
than men appears at an early age. KJeinke et al. (1977) had pre-
school boys and girls play a word game with a woman who gazed
either 20% or 80%. of the time. Girls tended to like the 80%
gazing woman more than the 20% gazing woman. Boys showed
a significant preference for the 20% gazing woman. It was sug-
gested lhat boys interpreted high levels of gaze from the woman
as a sign that they were doing something wrong because boys
experience more negative sanctions from teachers in school.
Personality Before people can be categorized according to
whether they gaze very much or very little, it is necessary to
demonstrate that gazing is a relatively consistent and stable be-
havior (Mischel, 1968). Three studies have reported relatively
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
high correlations (ranging from r = .57 to .98) between gazing
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
behaviors of individual adults toward different experimenters
over different periods of time (Daniell & Lewis, 1972; Libby,
1970; Patterson. 1973). Coates (1978) reported consistency in
gazing behaviors of infants.
Studies relating gazing behavior to personality measures can
be roughly divided between those that do and do not take into
account contextual variables. The latter approach is recom-
mended and is more compatible with the sequential model. Re-
searchers who wish to study gaze as a function of personality
measures are encouraged to avoid post hoc interpretations and
to make predictions derived from the three stages of the sequen-
tial model.
Exline's (1963) study offers a good example of the recom-
mended approach. He reported that women with high scores
on a measure of need for affiliation gazed more at other women
in cooperative rather than competitive interactions. Women
with low need for affiliation gazed more at other women in a
competitive interaction. Need for affiliation scores were not re-
lated to gazing behaviors of men. Another study taking context
into account found that high-control (Fundamental Interper-
sonal Relations Orientation-Behavior Questionnaire [FIRO-
B]) research participants gazed as much when speaking as when
listening (Ellyson et al., 1980). Low-control participants gazed
more when listening. A third study of gaze, personality, and
context determined that gaze in a normal interview was posi-
tively correlated with extraversion and with measures of posi-
tive self-concept (Wiens. Harper, & Matarazzo, 1980). In an in-
terview with awkward silences, interviewees with low self-con-
cepts and high scores on neuroticism and trait anxiety reacted
with increased gaze toward the interviewer.
Studies that did not include contextual variables found some
relations between people's gazing behaviors and their scores on
personality tests. High levels of gazing behavior have been re-
lated to high nurturance scores on the Edwards Personality Pro-
file Schedule (Libby & Yaklevich. 1973). to high scores on the
FIRO-B inclusion and affection scales (Exline, Gray, &
Schuette. 1965). and to high scores on the FIRO-B dependency
scale ( E x l i n e & Messick, 1967). High levels of gazing have also
been related to measures of assertiveness (Galassi et al., 1976).
Machiavellianism (Exline, Thibaut. Brannon. & Gumpert,
1961). social skill (Cherulnik, Neely, Flanagan, & Zachau,
1978). self-concept (Fugita et al., 1977), and internal control
(Lefcourt. Martin, Pick. & Saleh. 1985; Lefcourt & Wine,
1969).
Argyle and Cook (1976. p. 141) cited several studies showing
a positive relation between gaze and extraversion (see also Ra-
jecki. Ickes, & Tanford. 1981). Fromme and Beam (1974) re-
ported that high-dominant men expressed their dominance to-
ward a gazing confederate with physical approach whereas
high-dominant women expressed their dominance by increas-
ing their gaze. Rago (1977) observed that retarded male adults
who were behaviorally submissive gazed more at a male experi-
menter than retarded adults who were behaviorally dominant.
LaFrance and Carmen (1980) reported a positive relation be-
tween amount of gaze by college students and feminine-typed
responses on the Bern Sex Role Inventory. Ickes and Barnes
(1978) recorded more gaze in opposite-sex dyads when at least
one member had an androgynous sex-role orientation. Slane,
Dragan, Crandall. and Payne (1980) reported different patterns
of gazing behavior by repressers and sensitizers in response to
stress.
A final group of studies failed to correlate gazing behavior
with personality measures. Kendon and Cook (1969) found no
significant correlations between FIRO-B scores and gazing be-
havior. J. S. Efran (1968) failed to replicate a previous study
indicating a positive correlation between gaze and scores on the
Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (J. S. Efran &
Broughton, 1966). R. A. Snyder and Sutker( 1977) reported in-
consistent correlations between gaze and various dominance
scales. Hobson, Strongman, Bull, and Craig (1973) found no
relation between gaze aversion and Taylor Manifest Anxiety
Scale scores. No differences in gaze were evident for people with
high and low scores on Snyder's self-monitoring scale (Dabbs,
Evans, Hopper, & Purvis, 1980; Kleinke& Walton, 1982). Dun-
can and Fiske (1977, chap. 6) reported no consistent corre-
lations between people's self-ratings on adjective checklists and
their gazing behaviors.
Culture. The "always repeated rarely heeded" advice that
research findings should be replicated in other cultures reminds
us that most of the studies reported in this review were con-
ducted in the United States, Canada, or Great Britain (Ells-
worth & Ludwig. 1972). A few studies of gazing behavior in
other cultures have been reported in the research literature.
Some studies found cultural similarities. For example, Bond
and Komai (1976) reported that Japanese college students re-
sponded to direct gaze from a male experimenter with in-
creased self-manipulations, decreased torso movements, and
shorter response latencies. These results were consistent with
research findings in western cultures. Bond and Goodman
(1980) extended Argyle et al.'s (1974) findings by demonstrating
that Chinese college students associated short, frequent glances
(vs. longer but fewer glances) with activity and potency. Yoshida
and lida ( 1 9 8 1 ) replicated Argyle et al.'s (1968) results by show-
ing that Japanese college students preferred an interviewer who
was not wearing dark glasses.
Other studies found cultural differences. Watson (1970) com-
pared gazing behaviors of college students from "contact" cul-
tures (Arabs. Latin Americans, Southern Europeans) and from
"non-contact" cultures (Asians, Indians-Pakistanis, Northern
Europeans) and found greater levels of gaze by students from
contact cultures. Argyle and Cook (1976, pp. 29-33) described
a number of differences between cultures in rules that are used
for defining appropriate and inappropriate gazing behaviors.
For example, Navaho Indians are taught that it is impolite to
gaze directly at another person during a conversation. The Jap-
anese look more at the neck than at the eyes. Among the Luo
 GAZE AND EYE CONTACT
of Kenya, a man and his mother-in-law turn their backs on one
another while speaking. Too little gaze in some cultures is inter-
preted as a sign of dishonesty and insincerity. In other cultures,
turning the eyes downward is viewed as a gesture of respect.
People in some cultures wear veils or take other precautions to
protect themselves from the "Evil Eye." A fascinating historical
account of this phenomenon is provided by Tomkins (1963; see
also Machovec, 1976).
Clinical populations. Attempts to differentiate gazing of peo-
ple with various clinical diagnoses have met with only limited
success. This limited success is due to problems including the
need for adequate descriptions of patient populations and pa-
tient clinical state, control of interviewer behavior and inter-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
view content, appropriate sampling of interview segments for
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
analysis, and consistency in choice of measures of gaze (Rutter,
1973). Because of these problems, it is difficult to reach mean-
ingful conclusions about the results of the following studies.
Massie (1978) reported that mothers of prepsychotic infants
gave less gaze and touch to their infants during the first six
months of life than mothers whose infants were normal. S. E.
Harris (1978) found that adult schizophrenics directed compar-
atively more gaze than normal adults toward their mother. Ar-
gyle and Cook (1976, chap. 6) and Harper et al. (1978, pp. 222-
226) summarized a number of studies showing that autistic
children and schizophrenic, depressed, and neurotic adults en-
gage in comparatively low levels of gazing behavior. Rutter
(1976, 1977, 1978) concluded that schizophrenics do not differ
from nonschizophrenics in their gazing behavior and that
schizophrenics avert their gaze in the same manner as non-
schizophrenics when they are embarrassed.
Summary. Researchers have reported relations between gaze
and age, sex, personality, culture, and clinical diagnosis. Al-
though gaze is a relatively consistent and stable behavior, results
from studies of personal factors do not always fit a meaningful
pattern. This occurs largely because motivation and context
were not taken into account. Age differences, for example, are
moderated by situational influences on the gazer's self-con-
sciousness, anxiety, and dependence. Sex differences are moder-
ated by motives for affiliation, dependence, threat, and domi-
nance. Ickes (1981) integrated personality and sex variables
into a model that defines masculine sex-typed gazing as instru-
mental and feminine sex-typed gazing as expressive. The se-
quential model demonstrates that it is not fruitful to study the
effects of personal factors on gazing in isolation. Researchers
should make a priori predictions about the relation between
personal factors and gazing behavior in particular contexts and
specific types of interactions.
Experiential Factors
Patterson (1982, 1983) views experiential factors as relating
to the influence on nonverbal behaviors of recent or similar ex-
periences. Experiential factors include one's operant as well as
respondent learning history.
Behavioral consequences. Kleinke, Staneski. and Berger
(1975) used operant reinforcement to increase the gaze of re-
search participants tosvard an interviewer. Other researchers
have used operant reinforcement to enhance the gazing behav-
ior of clients in therapy programs (Clancy, 1976; Finch & Wal-
87
lace, 1977; Krop. Messinger. & Reiner, 1973; Morris & O'Neill.
1976).
Gazing person's physical attractiveness. Several studies
found that college men gave unfavorable ratings to unattractive
women but not to attractive women who engaged in low levels of
gaze during an interaction (Kleinke, Staneski, & Berger, 1975;
KJeinke, Staneski, & Pipp, 1975; Scherwitz & Helmreich,
1973). KJeinke, Staneski, and Pipp (1975) suggested that we
learn to make different interpretations about (gazing) behaviors
of attractive and unattractive people such that attractive people
are tolerated more when they are nonresponsive.
Anxiety. White interviewers in a study by Word, Zanna, and
Cooper (1974) gazed less at black interviewees than at white
interviewees, presumably as a result of heightened anxiety from
interacting with a person of different race. These results were
elaborated by Ickes (1984), who found that whites who desire
interactions with blacks gazed more at a black versus a white
interviewer. Whites who avoid interactions with blacks gazed
less at a black versus a white interviewer. Hobson et al. (1973)
aroused anxiety in research participants by having an experi-
menter tell them they were not doing well in an interview. These
anxious participants did not demonstrate gaze aversion from an
interviewer who was different from the experimenter.
Moods. Several investigators studied gaze as a function of
moods that were induced in a laboratory setting. Natale (1977)
used Velten's (1968) technique to induce elation, neutral feel-
ings, or depression. Elated participants engaged in most eye
contact and depressed participants engaged in least eye contact
during a subsequent interaction. Participants in a study by Mc-
Clintock and Hunt (1975) were interviewed on topics designed
to arouse passivity, pleasantness, or unpleasantness. Partici-
pants who experienced passivity engaged in less eye contact
than other participants. Fifth-grade boys in a study by Zimmer-
man and Brody (1975) gazed at each other more after viewing
a film in which boys engaged in warm versus cold interactions.
In a study that did not involve induced moods, Waxer (1974)
reported that depressed psychiatric patients gazed less at an in-
terviewer than nondepressed psychiatric patients.
Embarrassment. Research participants in three experiments
gazed less at interviewers who asked personal and embarrassing
questions (Edelmann & Hampson. 1981; Exline et al., 1965;
Schulz & Barefoot, 1974). Modigliani (1971) induced embar-
rassment by giving research participants a task on which they
failed. These embarrassed participants gazed less at others dur-
ing the study than participants in a second group who had expe-
rienced success. College women in a study by Ellsworth, Fried-
man, Perlick, and Hoyt (1978) preferred a female confederate
who gazed at them when they were uncertain about the experi-
ment and apparently felt the need to compare their feelings with
others. Embarrassed women preferred a confederate who did
not gaze at them. British college students significantly de-
creased their gaze toward an experimenter who revealed embar-
rassing information (Edelmann & Hampson, 1979).
Self-disclosure. Several researchers reported that research
participants engaged in less gazing behavior when they dis-
closed intimate and personal information (Carr & Dabbs, 1974;
Goldberg &Wellens. !979;Sundstrom, 1978). Anderson (1976)
reported a curvilinear relation showing most gaze during dis-
closure on topics of medium intimacy and least gaze during
disclosure on low- and high-intimacy topics.
 CHRIS L. KLEINKE
Summary. Gaze is influenced by one's learning history and
moods. People tend to gaze less when they are anxious, de-
pressed, and embarrassed and to gaze more when they are
elated. People gaze less when disclosing personal information,
and appear to be more tolerant to low levels of gaze from attrac-
tive versus unattractive others.
Relational Factors
Patterson (1982, 1983) grouped relational and situational
factors in a common category because they often interact with
one another to influence nonverbal involvement. However, be-
cause the research studies falling into these categories are dis-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tinct, and because all antecedent factors ultimately interact
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
with one another, [hey are separated here.
Love and friendship. Z. Rubin (1970) and Goldstein, Kilroy,
and Van de Voort (1976) found that opposite-sex couples who
expressed strong love for each other on a love scale engaged in
more mutual gaze than couples with low scores on the love scale.
Husbands and wives engaged in more eye contact when they
shared small rather than large levels of marital discord (Beier &
Sternberg, 1977). Russo( 1975) reported greater amounts of eye
contact between elementary school children who were friends
rather than nonfriends. Coutts and Schneider (1976) recorded
more gaze between female friends than female strangers. Noller
(1980) reported that married couples with low scores on a mari-
tal adjustment scale engaged in relatively high amounts of vi-
sual dominance. Spouses' looking patterns were significantly
correlated in couples with high and moderate marital adjust-
ment, but not in couples with low marital adjustment.
Dependency. Research participants directed more gaze to-
ward an experimenter when they were made to feel highly de-
pendent for assistance with a problem-solving task (Nevill,
1974). L. Harris (1968) observed that younger preschool girls
gazed more at an adult woman than did older preschool girls
while being tested for toy preferences. These results were inter-
preted with the explanation that younger preschool girls are
more dependent on women for attention and approval. Studies
showing that preschool boys gaze less than preschool girls at
women suggest that boys are less dependent than girls on
women for attention and approval (Ashear & Snortum. 1971;
L. Harris, 1968; Kleinke et al.. 1977). The fact that lastborn
men gaze more than firstborn men was interpreted as sign of
conditioned dependency (Ickes & Turner, 1983).
Mothers and infants. One group of studies in this section
focused on identifying predictible patterns of gaze between
mothers and infants. Robson, Pedersen, and Moss (1969) re-
ported positive correlations between maternal affection and
mother-infant gazing, and Arco, Self, and Gutrecht (1979)
demonstrated that infants reciprocated experimentally deter-
mined levels of gaze from their mothers. Peery and Stern (1976)
found reliable gazing frequency distributions for mothers and
infants across different activities.
Other researchers explored gazing behavior as a function of
infant age. Friedman et al. (1976) measured greater amounts
of eye contact between mothers and 4-month-old infants than
between mothers and 6- and 8-month-old infants. Farrah,
Hirschbiel, and Jay (1980) reported that mothers gazed more
at 6-momh-old than at 20- or 30-month-old infants.
In a third type of study, which may be related to dependency
and nurturance, Cohen and Campos (1974) observed that in-
fants gave more eye contact to an adult stranger when they were
near their mother than when they were near their father. Carr,
Dabbs. and Carr (1975) reported that 2-year-olds consistently
tried to remain within their mother's visual field.
Approval and stains. J. S. Efran and Broughton (1966) and
Mehrabian and Friar (1969) found that research participants
gazed more at high-status rather than low-status people, pre-
sumably because high-status people are in a better position to
give social approval. J. S. Efran (1968) and Fugita (1974) con-
ducted experiments in which participants interacted with con-
federates who were introduced as having high or low status and
who either gave or withheld social approval. When the confeder-
ate was introduced as having high status, participants gazed
more when the confederate was approving. Approval behavior
did not influence gaze of participants toward a confederate of
low status.
Competence. Burroughs. Schultz, and Autrey (1973) re-
ported that research participants gave more gaze and leadership
votes to a confederate who made high- rather than low-quality
arguments in a group discussion. Preschool children in a study
by Vaughan and Waters (1981) gazed more at peers who were
high rather than low in social competence.
Summary. People gaze more at others who are in a position
to provide (or receive) nurturance and approval. Further re-
search should help delineate the kinds of relationships that are
conducive to communicating nurturance and approval.
Situational Factors
Researchers have investigated the effects of situational factors
on gazing behavior from a variety of approaches and their re-
sults are difficult to organize in a meaningful fashion. Patterson
(1982, 1983) suggested that situational influences on nonverbal
interactions can be studied using the methodology of ecological
psychology (Barker. 1968; Wicker, 1979).
Interactive setting. The nature of an interactive setting influ-
ences gazing behavior, as evidenced by the greater willingness
of people in small towns versus large cities to engage in mutual
gaze with a stranger (Newman & McCauley, 1977; McCauley,
Coleman, & De Fusco, 1978). Two other examples are that peo-
ple share more mutual gaze when seated opposite rather than
beside each other (Muirhead & Goldman, 1979), and that re-
search participants gazed more at a confederate behind a one-
way mirror when they thought the confederate could see them
(Goldberg & Mettee, 1969).
Seating distance. A number of researchers reported that peo-
ple gaze less when seated close together rather than at a distance
(Argyle & Dean, 1965; Argyle & Ingham, 1972; Coutts & Led-
den, 1977; Coutts & Schneider, 1975; Fukuhara, 1977; Gold-
berg etal., 1969; Patterson. !977;Russo. 1975; Schulz& Bare-
foot. 1974; Stephenson, Rutter, & Dore. 1973). The results of
these studies have been used to support Argyle and Dean's
(1965) equilibrium model (see Argyle & Cook, 1976, chap. 3).
Other researchers did not find a significant relation between
seating distance and gazing behavior (Carr & Dabbs, 1974;
Chapman. 1975; Kleinke, Staneski, & Pipp, 1975).
There is a methodological problem associated with using
gaze-seating distance studies to test the equilibrium model. It
has been pointed out that recordings of gaze are inflated when
 GAZE AND EYE CONTACT
interactants are seated far apart (Knight, Langmeyer, & Lund-
gren, 1973; Martin & Rovira, 1981; Stephenson & Rutter,
1970). Patterson (1975) concluded that this bias in gaze record-
ing is limited to experiments in which differences between gaz-
ing and nongazing are very subtle, and that it is not an issue
when recording gaze in natural interactions. There is also a con-
ceptual problem associated with gaze-seating distance studies
as tests of the equilibrium model (see Cappella, 1981). A mech-
anism is needed to account for reciprocation versus compensa-
tion. I suggest later how reciprocation and compensation can be
analyzed by incorporating an attributional approach within the
sequential model.
Distraction. Research participants gazed less at an experi-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
menter when they were recalling material involving competing
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
rather than noncompeting associations (Stanley & Martin,
1968). Argyle and Graham (1976) reported steadily decreasing
amounts of mutual gaze between people when they were ex-
posed to visual stimuli that competed more and more for their
attention.
Speaking order. Lesko and Schneider (1978) demonstrated
that gaze is influenced by speaking order by showing that the
second speaker in a three-person group gazed most at the person
who had just spoken.
Summary. People gaze more at each other in settings condu-
cive to communication. Gaze is enhanced in situations provid-
ing face-to-face interaction, personalism, and minimal distrac-
tion. Studies investigating the effects of situational factors on
gazing behavior are sometimes difficult to interpret because
personal, experiential, and relational antecedents were not
taken into consideration.
Preinteraction Mediators
In Patterson's (1982, 1983) sequential model, the effects of
antecedent factors on nonverbal interactions are assumed to be
mediated by behavioral predispositions, potential changes in
arousal, and cognitive-affective assessment. The elaboration of
these preinteraction mediators, as they operate in the interac-
tion phase of the sequential model, is an important goal for gaze
and eye contact research.
Behavioral Predispositions
Behavioral predispositions are relatively stable characteris-
tics of individuals that mediate their responses in nonverbal in-
teractions. Behavioral predispositions are primarily a product
of the personal factors discussed earlier. Patterson (1982, 1983)
believes that behavioral predispositions are more or less auto-
matic and do not involve cognitive processes to the same degree
as changes in arousal and cognitive-affective assessment.
Potential Changes in Arousal
Patterson (1976. 1978) formulated an intimacy-arousal
model based on the cognitive-arousal theories of Schachter
(1964) and Mandler (1975). The intimacy-arousal model pro-
poses that sufficiently large increases (or decreases) in intimate
behaviors by one person toward another will result in changes
in the second person's physiological arousal. When these
changes in physiological arousal are labeled positively, the sec-
89
ond person will reciprocate with increased intimacy. When they
are labeled negatively, the second person will compensate with
decreased intimacy. Because the intimacy-arousal model is rel-
evant only when people are motivated to seek labels for intima-
cy-induced arousal (see Ellsworth. 1977, 1978;Knowles. 1977),
it was subsumed by Patterson (1982, 1983) into his sequential
model as a preinteraction mediator. The intimacy-arousal
model has raised a number of important research questions
having to do with the relation between nonverbal intimacy and
physiological arousal and with people's predispositions to seek
labels for arousal.
Defining arousal. Patterson (1976, 1978)basedtheintimacy-
arousal model on self-labeling of changes in physiological
arousal, but other researchers have used the term arousal more
generally. For example, Ellsworth and Langer (1976) defined the
stare as a stimulus "that elicits attention, arousal, and a sense
of interpersonal involvement" (p. 122). Ellsworth et al. (1972)
denned the stare as a "salient stimulus which forcibly involves
the subject in an interpersonal encounter and demands a re-
sponse" (p. 311). It is important for researchers to be clear
whether they are using "arousal" to mean physiological arousal
or psychological arousal associated with heightened attention
and interpersonal involvement. When measuring physiological
responses, researchers should be aware that different physiologi-
cal measures are not necessarily correlated with one another,
and that the notion of a generalized state of arousal has been
seriously challenged (Hassett, 1978).
Ga:e and physiological responses. Research shows that un-
der some conditions, gaze can result in heightened physiological
responses. Nichols and Champness (1971) and Strom and Buck
(1979) recorded increased galvanic skin responses when re-
search participants received direct gaze from an experimenter.
College men had significantly higher heart rates when they
played a competitive game with a male confederate who stared
at them (KJeinke & Pohlen, 1971). College women had slightly
higher heart rates when they received large amounts of gaze
from a female confederate in a social comparison experiment
(Ellsworth et al., 1978). Heart rates of research participants
were significantly increased when a confederate became more
intimate with gazing, smiling, and direct body orientation
(Coutts et al., 1980). Several investigators concluded that there
was evidence of physiological arousal in electroencephalogram
(EEC) recordings of research participants who were exposed to
high levels of gaze (Gale, Kingsley. Brookes, & Smith, 1978;
Gale, Lucas, Nissim, & Harpham. 1972; Gale, Spratt, Chap-
man, & Smallbone. 1975).
Other researchers reported no effects of gaze on physiological
responses. Experimenter gaze did not significantly influence
skin conductance levels and skin conductance responses of par-
ticipants in a study by Patterson, Jordan, Hogan, and Frerker
(1981). Leavitt and Donovan (1979) measured skin conduc-
tance and cardiac responses of mothers who viewed their gazing
and nongazing infants on a television monitor. No effects were
found for skin conductance. The cardiac data were complex
and difficult to interpret because there was no neutral stimulus
control group. Martin and Gardner (1979) reported that gaze
did not influence EEC responses in a noninteractive situation.
To reconcile these inconsistent findings of the effects of gaze
on physiological responses, it is necessary to explain how the
influence of gaze on physiological responses works. It cannot be
 90 CHRIS L. KJ.EINKE
accepted as "reasonable" (Bern. 1972, p. 46) that physiological
responses can be elicited by another person's gaze. It is neces-
sary to understand the mechanics of this effect. KJeinke and
Pohlen ( 1 9 7 1 ) invoked F. K. Graham and Clifton's (1966) asso-
ciation of heart rate deceleration with orienting reactions and
heart rate acceleration with defensive reactions to explain why
men had higher heart rates when playing a competitive game
with a gazing confederate. These results can also be related to
Obrist's (1976) research with the assumption that participants
were tensing their muscles in response to the gazing confeder-
ate's provocation. In threatening situations, gaze from another
person might evoke an active coping response with increased
heart rate and only minimal changes in overt behavior (Obrist,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
1976). It is not known whether participants in published gaze
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
experiments were sufficiently stressed for an active coping re-
sponse.
Another study shedding light on the mechanics of gaze and
physiological responses was conducted by KJeinke (1981). Col-
lege women attempted to alter their bodily responses while re-
ceiving false biofeedbaek and either 85% or no gaze from a fe-
male confederate. The unexpected finding that participants'
heart rates were significantly higher in the no-gaze condition
was explained in the following way.4 In the no-gaze condition,
participants typically followed the confederate's example of
concentrating and closing her eyes. Concentration is associated
with environmental rejection and the possible tensing of the
muscles that result in increased heart rate (Hassett, 1978;
Obrist, 1976). In the 85% gaze condition, participants typically
focused their attention on the confederate and objects in the
room. Environmental intake and attention to external events
are associated with decreased heart rate (Hassett, 1978).
Cognitive-Affective Assessment
Cognitive-affective assessment reflects the influence on reac-
tions to another person's gaze of attributions made about the
gazing person's intentions and motives. Other issues bearing on
cognitive-affective assessment include people's relative aware-
ness of their own gazing behaviors and delineation of conditions
under which people are most likely to be aware of and seek attri-
butions for gaze they receive from others.
Attribution? about causes and motives. Kelley and Michela
(1980) denned attribution research as the study of perceptions
about antecedents or causes of another person's behavior and
uliribiitional research as the study of reactions to another's be-
havior. They combined these research approaches into a model
describing how reactions to another person's behavior are in-
fluenced by one's motives and expectations and one's percep-
tions about the behavior's intentions and causes. Kelley and Mi-
chela's (1980) model provides a useful structure for analyzing
cognitive-affective assessment in the sequential model. It can be
predicted that gaze from another person will result in compen-
sation when the recipient wishes to avoid closeness with the gaz-
ing person and when the gaze is viewed as inappropriate, un-
modifiable. and the product of undesirable motives.5 Gaze is
likely to result in reciprocation when the recipient is motivated
to seek closeness with the gazing person and when the gaze is
viewed as appropriate, modifiable, and resulting from desirable
intentions and motives. Many hypotheses about what consti-
tutes appropriate and inappropriate gaze can be derived from
theories of attribution and ingratiation. For example, gaze that
is attributed to situational causes may be interpreted differently
from gaze that is attributed to the gazing person's dispositions
(Jones & Davis, 1965; Jones & McGillis, 1976; Kelley, 1967).
Reactions to gaze are also likely to depend on perceptions of a
gazing person's competitiveness, dependency, status, and men-
tal health. Ingratiation research suggests that perceived motives
for someone's gaze may vary according to whether he or she is
dependent or not dependent on the recipient's acceptance and
approval (Jones & Wortman, 1973; Kleinke, Staneski, &
Weaver, 1972; Staneski, Kleinke, & Meeker, 1977). Gaze would
be a useful behavior to incorporate into studies of self-presenta-
tion (Schlenker, 1980). Gazing behavior might also be a useful
manipulation (or measure) in studies of self-focused attention
(KJeinke, 1978; WickJund, 1975).
Se/f-OHweness ofga:e. Two questions related to self-aware-
ness of gaze concern people's accuracy in reporting their gaze
and the effects of self-perceived gazing behavior on one's atti-
tudes.
People's accuracy in reporting their gazing behavior has only
recently come under investigation. KJeinke's (1981) research
participants estimated their gaze as 17%, whereas it was actually
only 1 %. Participants in KJeinke and Walton's (1982) study esti-
mated their gaze more accurately during an interview (esti-
mated = 58%, actual = 45%), but it is not known whether these
estimates were biased by assumptions from base rates (Mischel,
1968).6 It would be interesting to determine whether self-esti-
mates of gazing behavior are more accurate when people are
experiencing mind fulness (Langer, 1978), personal involve-
ment (Taylor & Fiske, 1978), or self-awareness (Wicklund,
1975). Individual differences in self-awareness of gaze are also
worthy of further study. KJeinke and Walton (1982) found no
relation between accuracy in self-estimates of gazing, smiling,
and talking and scores on M. Snyder's (1974) self-monitoring
scale.
With regard to the effects of self-perceived gazing on atti-
tudes. Bern's (1972) self-perception theory predicts that peo-
ple's attitudes are most likely influenced by their gazing behav-
iors when they are aware of their gaze and attribute it to their
own choice. KJeinke, Staneski, and Berger (1975) attempted to
demonstrate Bern's (1972) theory by reinforcing college men to
increase their gaze toward a female interviewer. Results indi-
cated that increased gaze had no effect on evaluations of the
interviewer, but it was not known whether participants were
aware that their gazing behavior had increased. Participants'
verbal ratings were influenced when they were made aware of
their (ostensible) gaze toward another person with false feed-
back (KJeinke etal.. 1973).
Auvireness ol ga:efrom others. The same questions related
to self-awareness of gaze are applicable to the awareness of gaze
from others. Ellsworth (1975) described gaze as a relatively sa-
lient stimulus in human interactions, but people's accuracy in
estimating another person's gaze is often low. Argyle and Wil-
4
Mean heart rates were 77.3 beats/min in the 85% gaze condition
and 82.4 beats/min in the no-gaze condition. F( 1. 36) = 4.17. p < .05.
5
A parallel discussion relating theories of attribution to compensa-
tion and reciprocation in self-disclosure can be found in Kleinke(l979).
6
Participants estimated that they smiled 549t- of the time and talked
611 of the time. The actual values were 19"i and 54°o, respectively.
 GAZE AND EYE CONTACT
Mams (1969) found that research participants did not distin-
guish between the gazing behaviors of a confederate who inten-
tionally gazed 80% or 20% of the time. Participants in KJeinke's
(1981) study estimated that an 85% gazing confederate had
gazed 27% of the time and that a nongazing confederate had
gazed 7% of the time. One factor affecting accuracy in assessing
gaze received from another person is one's attention and mind-
fulness toward the interaction. It can be predicted that people
will have greatest accuracy in reporting another person's gaze
when they are in novel situations (Langer. 1978), when they are
experiencing emotional arousal or personal involvement (Tay-
lor & Fiske, 1978). when they are threatened with unexpected
consequences (Pittman & Pittman, 1980), and when they have
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
empathy toward the gazing person (Harvey, Yarkin, Lightner.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
& Town, 1980; see Kleinke. 1986. chap. 8). Personal motives
and expectations also affect the assessment of another's gaze.
Research participants interacted with a peer, falsely believing
the peer would view them with a facial scar or a history of epi-
lepsy (KJeck & Strenta, 1980). As a result of this self-perceived
stigma, participants assumed they were given reduced amounts
of eye contact.
In addition to learning more about accuracy in assessing an-
other's gaze, researchers are encouraged to explore people's
awareness of how another's gaze influences their own feelings
and behaviors. Research suggests that people can be influenced
by another's gaze without being aware of it (Zajonc, 1980) and
that their awareness of this influence should be greatest when
the effects of the gaze are salient and plausible (Nisbett & Wil-
son, 1977; Taylor & Fiske, 1978). Studies that did not take these
research conclusions into account have found mixed results.
Tankard (1970) found no difference in evaluations given by re-
search participants who did or did not notice the gazing pat-
terns of a person they were rating in a photograph. Experi-
menter gaze led to increased compliance in Brockner et al.'s
(1982) experiment, but the subjects were not able to report the
effects of this gaze on their behavior. Cook and Smith (1975)
reported that about half of their research participants noticed
the gazing behaviors of a confederate who gazed at them con-
stantly, intermittently, or not at all during a conversation. Par-
ticipants who noticed the confederate's gazing behavior were
more influenced in their ratings of the experimenter than par-
ticipants who did not.
Interaction Phase
Patterson's (1982. 1983) sequential model describes how re-
sponses in interpersonal interactions are moderated by prein-
teraction mediators. People enter interactions with expectations
about the amount of intimacy or involvement that is appropri-
ate. When the expected and actual involvement are discrepant,
the interaction is described as unstable and it can be predicted
that the discrepantly high or low involvement will result in com-
pensation. The compensatory response in unstable interactions
is determined by a second stage of cognitive-affective assess-
ment. When the valence of this cognitive reassessment is posi-
tive (the other person's intentions are judged favorably, the dis-
crepant intimacy is accepted, potential physiological responses
are labeled positively), the compensatory response will be one
of approach. When the valence of the cognitive reassessment is
negative, the compensatory response will be one of avoidance.
91
If the compensatory response does not result in a stable ex-
change, the interaction will be terminated.
Kleinke. Staneski. and Pipp (1975) pointed out the progres-
sion in gaze and eye contact research from simple comparisions
between levels of gaze to investigations of gaze in relation to
specific contexts and situations. It is useful now to examine how
the interaction phase of the sequential model can account for
the results of these studies.
Avoidance and Escape
Studies of avoidance and escape are a good example of unsta-
ble exchanges that were terminated because of excessively high
gaze from another person. It is noteworthy that staring did not
result in as much escape when the staring person smiled or was
physically attractive. Future research should determine the de-
gree to which escape from staring is mediated by self-labeling
of physiological responses versus cognitive-affective assessment.
Gaze and Compliance
The operation of the interaction phase was demonstrated in
studies comparing conditions under which gaze results in in-
creased versus decreased compliance. People were more likely
to terminate interactions with gazing experimenters in contexts
that were ambiguous or illegitimate. Experimenter gaze in these
interactions was apparently assessed as inappropriate and the
interaction remained unstable. In contrast to these findings,
gaze resulted in increased compliance when it came from ex-
perimenters whose requests were unambiguous or legitimate.
Gaze from experimenters in these contexts presumably resulted
in a stable interaction because it was expected and assessed as
appropriate. As with escape and avoidance, it is not known how
much compliance under conditions of gaze versus no gaze is
influenced by cognitive-affective assessment versus self-labeled
physiological responses.
Gazing Person's Physical Attractiveness
Research suggesting that attractive women receive the "bene-
fit of the doubt" when withholding gaze was related to cultural
biases influencing expectations about (gazing) behaviors viewed
as acceptable or unacceptable from others with different
amounts of physical attractiveness. People apparently make
different cognitive-affective assessments when receiving high
and low amounts of gaze from attractive versus unattractive
others.
Positive and Negative Evaluations
Previous models of nonverbal interaction predicted recipro-
cation to gaze in positive interactions and compensation to gaze
in negative interactions. However, the interaction phase of the
sequential model explains how these outcomes can be reversed.
Ellsworth and Carlsmith (1968) and Reis and Halek (1976)
reported that research participants responded positively to ex-
perimenters who gazed during an interview or news report with
favorable content. The experimenter's gazing behavior in these
situations was apparently expected and assessed as appropriate.
In contrast, Kleinke and Pohlen (1971 (concluded that the com-
bination of constant gaze and cooperation by a confederate dur-
 92 CHRIS L. KLEINKE
ing a two-person game was "inappropriate and vexing." Scher-
witz and Helmreich (1973) similarly concluded that too much
gaze from an experimenter who delivered a favorable evaluation
was viewed by recipients as a "breach of a norm" because it was
too intimate for the nature of the interaction.
Expectations and assessment also moderate reactions to gaze
in negative interactions. Participants in a study by Schaefler and
Patterson (1980) reacted unfavorably to experimenter gaze in a
crowded room primarily when they expected an incompatible
group discussion. Ellsworth and Carlsmith (1968) concluded
that research participants preferred an interviewer with losv
gaze during a negative interview because of their assessment of
the interviewer's tactfulness in averting gaze during an awkward
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
interaction. Coutts et al. (1980) concluded that their research
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
participants reciprocated with high amounts of gaze to a nega-
tive confederate in order to encourage a level of intimacy appro-
priate for a stable exchange. Ickeset al. (1982) found that people
increased their gaze when expecting a negative interaction in
order to encourage a friendly outcome. Participants in Ells-
worth and Carlsmith's (1973) experiment delivered electric
shocks to a gazing confederate when it appeared that the shocks
would make the confederate gaze less.
Summary
Although the above studies were conducted prior to the devel-
opment of the sequential model, the model provides a useful
framework for integrating and explaining their results. At pres-
ent, the compatibility between gaze and eye contact research
and the sequential model is inferential and retrospective. It will
be necessary in future research to predict and measure the de-
gree to which reactions to gaze are mediated by (a) expectations
about appropriate amounts of gaze in a given interaction, (b)
attributions about the gazing person's motives, and (c) self-la-
beling of gaze-induced physiological responses (see KJeinke,
1980). The inclusion of dispositional. physiological, and cogni-
tive measures should help accomplish this goal.
Some Research Directions
A number of research questions were suggested during the
course of this review. Two general directions for gaze and eye
contact research can be outlined. First, researchers can add to
our knowledge about the functions of gaze and the operation of
its antecedents. Second, we should learn more about the effects
of preinteraction mediators on gazing behavior and on reac-
tions to gaze from others. I suggest some questions to be an-
swered about preinteraction mediators in the next section.
Behavioral Dispositions
There are a number of ways behavioral dispositions can be
included in the paradigm shift (Bern, 1972) in social psychology
toward cognitive processes. Recent interest in cognitive pro-
cesses has led researchers to measure predispositions to attend
to causes and explanations for behaviors, and it is likely that
these measures can be related to an awareness of one's own and
another's gaze (Cacioppo & Petty, 1981; Snyder, 1974). Person-
ality studies on gaze and reactions to gaze might be expanded
to explore the relation between personality and perceptions of
functions and motives for gaze. Some examples of differential
perceptions of gaze have been demonstrated in studies compar-
ing men and women. The influence of experiential and situa-
tional factors on gaze might often be automatic or unconscious,
but situations can be identified in which certain types of people
engage in cognitive-affective assessment of gaze. More research
is needed to outline people's expectations about the meaning
and appropriateness of gazing behavior in different contexts and
relationships. It would also be useful to learn more about how
people interpret gazing behaviors when they are undergoing
various kinds of experiences or emotions.
Potential Physiological Arousal
It would be useful to demonstrate conditions under which
gaze results in increases, decreases, or no change in physiologi-
cal responding. One way to do this would be to assess (or manip-
ulate) a recipient's expectations, with the hypothesis that unex-
pected gazing (or nongazing) is more apt to cause physiological
changes than expected gazing (or nongazing; see Cappella &
Greene, 1982; Ickes et al., 1982). Judgments about whether a
gazing person has positive or negative intentions might also
have differential effects on physiological responses.
In studying the effects of gaze on physiological responses, it
would be advisable to make the distinction between physiologi-
cal responses that are internally detected, externally detected,
and undetected (Cialdini, Petty, & Cacioppo, 1981, pp. 373-
375). Having accomplished such a demonstration of gaze-in-
duced physiological change, an attempt could be made to in-
fluence the labels attached to this experience (see Coutts et al.,
1980; KJeinke, 1981). It would be important to distinguish be-
tween behavioral measures and self-ratings of affect and to con-
ceptualize self-labeling of physiological responses as a cause-
seeking as well as a social comparison process (Maslach,
1979a). Researchers must also bear in mind that self-labeling of
arousal occurs primarily when people experience unexplained
physiological changes, and that this is a rare occurrence in ev-
eryday life (Marshall & Zimbardo, 1979; Maslach, 1979a,
1979b). Finally, within-subjects designs are probably more rele-
vant than between-subjects designs for studying physiological
responses related to changes in intimacy (Patterson, 1976,
1978).
Cognitive-Affective Assessment
Suggestions were given earlier about how theories of attribu-
tion can be used to make predictions about explanations and
interpretations that are given to one's gaze and the gazing be-
haviors of others. Investigators have measured attributions
about gazing and nongazing experimenters in field settings by
asking recipients to evaluate the experimenters (Brockner et al.,
1982: see also R. J. Smith & Knowles, 1978, 1979). Patterson
(1982) suggested Cacioppo and Petty's (1981) thought-listing
procedure as an index of cognitive-affective assessment. Patter-
son's (1983, p. 168) video replay method might also prove use-
ful for this purpose. It would be valuable to learn more about
situations or personality traits that are predictive of high versus
low accuracy in reporting gazing behavior by oneselfand others.
 GAZE AND EYE CONTACT
Concluding Comment
The sequential model has provided a useful framework for
organizing gaze and eye contact research. The sequential model
views interpersonal gaze as a dynamic rather than static pro-
cess. It suggestsa multivariate approach in which gaze is denned
as part of a system of involvement behaviors. Researchers are
encouraged to take into account the interaction process denned
by the sequential model in their studies of gazing behavior.
References
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Abele, A. (1981). Acquaintance and visual behavior between two inter-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
actants: Their communicative function for the impression formation
of an observer. European Journal of Social Psychology. I I , 409-425.
Abramovitch, R., & Daly, E. M. (1978). Children's use ofhead orienta-
tion and eye contact in making attributions of affiliation. Child Devel-
opment. 49, 5 \9-522.
Adams, R. M., & Kirkevold, B. (1978). Looking, smiling, laughing, and
moving in restaurants: Sex and age differences. Emironmemal Psy-
chology and Nonverbal Behavior. 3, 117-121.
Aiello. J. R. (1972). A test of equilibrium theory: Visual interaction in
relation to orientation, distance, and sex of interactants. Psychonomic
Science. 27,335-336.
Aiello, J. R. (1977a). A further look at equilibrium theory: Visual inter-
action as a function of interpersonal distance. Emironmemal Psy-
chology and Nonverbal Behavior, I , 112-140.
Aiello. J . R . ( l 9 7 7 b ) . Visual interaction at extended distances. Personal-
ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 83-86.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of
interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt. Rinehart & Winston.
Amalfitano, J. G., & Kalt, N. C. (1977). Effects of eye contact on the
evaluation of job applicants. Journal of Employment Counseling, 14,
46-48.
Anderson. D. R. (1976). Eye contact, topic intimacy, and equilibrium
theory. Journal of Social Psychology, 100, 313-314.
Arco, C. M., Self, P. A., & Gutrecht, N. (1979). The effect of increased
maternal visual regard on neonatal visual behavior. Journal of Clini-
cal Child Psychology. 8, 117-120.
Argyle, M. (1972). Non-verbal communication in human social interac-
tion. In R. A. Hinde (Ed.), Non-verbal communication. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Argyle, M., & Cook, M. (1976). Ga:e and mutual gaze. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance, and affiliation.
Sociometry, 28. 289-304.
Argyle, M., & Graham, J. A. (1976). The Central European
experiment—looking at persons and looking at objects. Environmen-
tal Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 1.6-16.
Argyle, M., & Ingham, R. (1972). Gaze, mutual gaze and proximity.
Semiolica, 6, 32-49.
Argyle, M., Lalljee, M., & Cook, M. (1968). The effects of visability on
interaction in a dyad. Human Relations, 21. 3-17.
Argyle, M., Lefebvre, L. M.. & Cook. M. (1974). The meaning of five
patterns of gaze. European Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 125-136.
Argyle, M., & Williams, M. (1969). Observer or observed? A reversible
perspective in person perception. Soclomeliy, 32,396-412.
Ashear, V., & Snortum. J. R. (1971). Eye contact in children as a func-
tion of age, sex, social and intellective variables. Developmental Psy-
chology: 4. 479.
Bailey, K. G., Tipton. R. M., & Taylor. P. F. (1977). The threatening
stare: Differential response latencies in mild and profoundly retarded
adults. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 81, 599-602.
Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for
93
studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Bayes, M. A. (1972). Behavioral cues of interpersonal warmth. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 39, 333-339.
Beattie. G. W. (1978). Floor apportionment and gaze in conversational
dyads. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 17. 7-15.
Beattie, G. W. (1979). Contextual constraints on the floor-apportion-
ment function of speaker-gaze in dyadic conversation. British Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, IS, 391-392.
Beebe. S. A. (1974). Eye contact: A nonverbal determinant of speaker
credibility. The Speech Teacher, 23.21-25.
Beier. E. G., & Steinberg, D. P. (1977). Marital communication: Subtle
cues between newly-weds. Journal of Communication, 27, 92-103.
Bellack, A. S., Heisen, M., & Lamparski, D. (1979). Role-play tests for
assessing social skills: Are they valid? Are they useful? Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 335-342.
Bellack. A. S., Hersen, M., & Turner, S. M. (1978). Role-play tests for
assessing social skills: Are they valid? Behavior Therapy, 9, 448-461.
Bellack. A. S., Hersen, M.. & Turner, S. M. (1979). Relationship of role
playing and knowledge of appropriate behavior to assertion in the
natural environment. Journal oj Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
47, 670-678.
Bern. D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Ad-
vances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6 pp. 1-62). New
York: Academic Press.
Bloom. K. (1975). Social elicitation of infant vocal behavior. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology. 20, 51-58.
Bond. M. H., & Goodman, G. N. (1980). Gaze patterns and interaction
contexts: Effects on personality impressions and attributions. Psy-
chology: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient. 23.
70-77.
Bond. M. H.. & Komai. H. (1976). Targets of gazing and eye contact
during interviews: Effects on Japanese nonverbal behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology'. 34. 1276-1284.
Breed. G. (1972). The effect of intimacy: Reciprocity or retreat? British
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, II, 135-142.
Breed, G., & Colaiuta, V. (1974). Looking, blinking, and sitting: Non-
verbal dynamics in the classroom. Journal of Communication. 24.
74-81.
Breed, G.. & Porter, M. (1972). Eye contact, attitudes, and attitude
change among males. Journal of Social Psychology, 120. 211-217.
Brockner, J.. Pressman, B.. Cabitt, J., & Moran, P. (1982). Nonverbal
intimacy, sex. and compliance: A field study. Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 6, 253-258.
Buchanan, D. R., Goldman, M., Juhnke, R. (1977). Eye contact, sex,
and the violation of personal space. Journal of Social Psychology, 103,
19-25.
Bull, R., & Gibson-Robinson, E. (1981). The influence ofeye-gaze, style
of dress, and locality on the amounts of money donated to charity.
Human Relations. 34, 895-905.
Burns, J. A.. & Kintz. B. L. (1976). Eye contact while lying during an
interview. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 7, 87-89.
Burroughs, W, Schultz, W., & Autrey, S. (1973). Quality of argument,
leadership votes, and eye contact in three-person leaderless groups.
Journal of Social Psychology. 90. 89-93.
Burton. A., McGregor. H.. & Berry, P. (1979). The effects of social rein-
forcement on dominant and dependent mildly intellectually handi-
capped school-leavers. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychol-
ogy. IS. 129-133.
Cacioppo, J. T. & Petty, R. E. (1981). Social psychological procedures
for cognitive response assessment: The thought listing technique. In
T. V. Merluzzi, C. R. Glass, & M. Genest (Eds.), Cognitive assess-
ment. New York: Guilford Press.
Campbell, D. E.. & Lancioni. G. E. (1979). The effects of staring and
pew invasion in church settings. Journal of Social Psychology, 108,
19-24.
 94 CHRIS L. KJ-EINKE
Cappella, J. N. (1981). Mutual influence in expressive behavior: Adult-
adult and infant-adult dyadic interaction. Ps\-chological Bulletin. 89.
101-132.
Cappella. J. N.. & Greene. J. O. (1982). A discrepancy-arousal explana-
tion of mutual influence in expressive behavior for adult and infant-
adult interaction. Communication Monographs. 49. 89-114.
Caproni, V.. Levine, D., O'Neal. E., McDonald. R.. & Garwood, G.
(1977). Seating position, instructor's eye contact availability, and stu-
dent participation in a small seminar. Journal of Social Psychology,
103. 315-316.
Carnevale. P. J. D.. Pruitt, D. G., & Seilheimer. S. D. (1981). Looking
and competing: Accountability and visual access in integrative bar-
gaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, II1-120.
Carr, S. J., & Dabbs, J. M. (1974). The effects of lighting, distance and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
intimacy of topic on verbal and visual behavior. Sociometry. J7, 592-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
600.
Carr, S. J.. Dabbs. J. M., & Carr, T. S. (1975). Mother-infant attach-
ment: The importance of the mother's visual field. Child Develop-
meni, 46. 331-338.
Cary, M. S. (I978a). Does civil inattention exist in pedestrian passing?
Journal of Personality and Social Psycho/og): 36, 1185-1193.
Cary, M. S. (I978b). The role of gaze in the initiation of conversation.
Social Psychology: 41. 269-271.
Chapman, A. J. (1975). Eye contact, physical proximity and laughter:
A re-examination of the equilibrium model of social intimacy. Social
Behavior and Personality. 3, 143-155.
Cherulnik, P. D.. Neelv, W. T., Flanagan, M.. & Zachau. M. (1978).
Social skill and visual interaction. Journal of Social Psychology. 104,
263-270.
Cialdini. R. B.. Petty. R. E.. & Cacioppo. J. T. (1981). Altitude and
attitude change. In M. R. Rosenweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.). Annual
review of psychology (Vo\. 32, pp. 357-404). Palo Alto, CA: Annual
Reviews.
Clancy. H. G. (1976). Integrating Ihe environment in therapy. Man-
Emironmem Systems. 6. 305-315.
Coates, B. (1978). Consistency of attachment behavior in the human
infant: A multivariate approach. Child Study Journal, 8, 131-148.
Cohen. L. J., & Campos, J. J. (1974). Father, mother, and stranger as
elicitors of attachment behaviors in infancy. Developmental Psychol-
ogy. 10, 146-154.
Condon, W. S. (1980). The relation of interactional synchrony to cogni-
tive and emotional processes. In M. R. Key (Ed.). The relationship of
verbal and nonverbal communication (pp. 49-65). The Hague, The
Netherlands: Mouton.
Conger, J. C... & Farrell. A. D. (1981). Behavioral components ofhetero-
social skills, Behavior Therapy. 12, 41-55.
Cook, M., & Smith. M. C. (1975). The role of gaze in impression forma-
tion. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14. 19-25.
Coutts, L. M., & Ledden. M. (1977). Nonverbal compensatory reac-
tions to changes in interpersonal proximity. Journal of Social Ps \~chol-
ogy. 102. 283-290.
Coutts, L. M.. & Schneider, F. W. (1975). Visual behavior in an unfo-
cused interaction as a function of sex and distance. Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, II, 64-77.
Coutts, L. M., & Schneider, F. W. (1976). Affiliative conflict theory: An
investigation of the intimacy equilibrium and compensation hypoth-
esis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1135-1142.
Coutls, L. M., Schneider. F. W., & Montgomery, S. (1980). An investiga-
tion of Ihe arousal model of interpersonal intimacy. Journal of Exper-
imental Social Psychology, 16. 545-561.
Cranach. M. von (1971). The role of orienting behavior in human inter-
action. In A. H. Esser (Ed.), Behavior and environment: The use of
space by animals and men (pp. 217-237). New York: Plenum Press.
Dabbs, J. M.. Evans. M. S.. Hopper, C. H., & Purvis, J. A. (1980). Self-
monitors in conversation: What do they monitor? Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 39. 278-284.
Daniell, R. J., & Lewis, P. (1972). Stability of eye contact and physical
distance across a series of structured interviews. Journal of Consult-
ing and Clinical Psychology. 39, 172.
Dovidio, J. F.. & Ellyson. S. L. (1982). Decoding visual dominance:
Attributions of power based on relative percentages of looking while
speaking and looking while listening. Social Psychology Quarterly,
45, 106-113.
Duncan. S. D. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns
in conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: 23,
283-292.
Duncan, S. D.. & Fiske, D. W. (1977). Face-to-face interaction: Re-
search, methods, andtheory. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
Duncan. S. D.. & Niederehe, G. (1974). On signalling that it's your turn
to speak. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 234-247.
Edelmann. R. J., & Hampson, S. E. (1979). Changes in non-verbal be-
havior during embarrassment. British Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, IS. 385-390.
Edelmann, R. J.. & Hampson, S. E. (1981). Embarrassment in dyadic
interaction. Social Behavior and Personality, 9. 171-177.
Efran, J. S. (1968). Looking for approval: Effects on visual behavior of
approbation from persons differing in importance. Journal ofPerson-
ality and Social Psychology, 10. 21-25.
Efran. J. S., & Broughton, A. (1966). Effect of expectancies for social
approval on visual behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 4. 103-107.
Efran. M. G., & Cheyne, J. A. (1974). Affective concomitants of the
invasion of shared space: Behavioral, physiological, and verbal indi-
cators. Journal of Personality and Social Pswhology, 29, 219-226.
Eisler. R. M., Hersen. M., Miller. P. M.. & Blanchard, E. B. (1975).
Situational determinants of assertive behaviors. Journal of Consult-
ing and Clinical Psychology, 43. 330-340.
Ekman, P.. & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behav-
ior: Categories, origins, usage and codings. Semiotica, 1.49-97.
Ellsworth. P. C. (1975). Direct gaze as a social stimulus: The example
of aggression. In P. Pliner, L. Krames, & T. Alloway (Eds.), Nonverbal
communication of aggression (pp. 53-76). New \ork: Plenum Press.
Ellsworth, P. C. (1977. August). Some questions about the role of arousal
in the interpretation of direct gaze. Paper presented at the meeting of
the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.
Ellsworth, P. C. (1978). The meaningful look. Semio/ica. 24, 341-351.
Ellsworth, P. C.. & Carlsmith. J. M. (1968). Effects of eye contact and
verbal content on affective response to a dyadic interaction. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. 10. 1 5-20.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1973). Eye contact and gaze aver-
sion in an aggressive encounter. Journal of Personality and Social Ps.\'-
chology, 28. 280-292.
Ellsworth, P. C., Carlsmith, J. M.. & Henson, A. (1972). The stare as a
stimulus to flight in human subjects: A series of field experiments.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21. 302-311.
Ellsworth, P. C., Friedman, H. S., Perlick, D., & Hoyt, M. E. (1978).
Some effects of gaze on subjects motivated to seek or to avoid social
comparison. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14,69-87.
Ellsworth, P. C.. & Langer, E. J. (1976). Staring and approach. An inter-
pretation of the stare as a nonspecific activator. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 33. 117-122.
Ellsworth. P. C.. & Ludwig, L. M. (1972). Visual behavior in social in-
teraction. Journal of Communication. 22, 375-403.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Ross, L. D. (1975). Intimacy in response to direct
gaze. Journal of Experimental S(tcial Psychology, 11, 592-613.
Ellyson, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., & Corson. R. L. (1981). Visual differences
in females as a function of self-perceived expertise. Journal of Nonver-
bal Behavior. 5, 164-171.
Ellyson, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Corson. R. L.. & Vinicur. D. L. (1980).
Visual dominance behavior in female dyads: Situational and person-
ality factors. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43. 328-336.
Elman. D.. Schulte. D. C.. & Bukoff. A. (1977). Effects of facial expres-
 GAZE AND EYE CONTACT
sion and stare duration on walking speed: Two field experiments. En-
vironmental Psychology and Non-verbal Behavior, 2, 93-99.
Ernest, R. C., & Cooper, R. E. (1974). "Hey mister, do you have any
change?": Two real world studies of proxemic effects on compliance
with a mundane request. Personality and Social Psychology' Bulletin.
1. 158-159.
Exline, R. V. (1963). Explorations in the process of person perception:
Visual interaction in relation to competition, sex, and need for affil-
iation. Journal of Personality, 31, 1-20.
Exline, R. V. (1971). Visual interaction: The glances of power and pref-
erence. In J. K. Cole (Ed.). Nebraska Symposium an Motivation (Vet.
19, pp. 162-205). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Exline, R. V., & Eldridge, C. (1967, April). Effects of i\m patterns of a
speaker's visual behavior upon the perception of the authenticity of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
his verbal message. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Psychological Association, Boston.
Exline, R. V., Ellyson, S. L., & Long. B. (1975). Visual behavior as an
aspect of power role relationships. In P. Pliner, L. Krames, & T. Allo-
way (Eds.). Nonverbal communication of aggression (pp. 21-52). New
\brk: Plenum Press.
Exline, R. V., & Fehr, B. J. (1982). The assessment of gaze and mutual
gaze. In K.. R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.). Ham/book of methods in
nonverbal behavior research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Exline, R. V., Gray, D., & Schuette. D. (1965). Visual behavior in a
dyad as affected by interview content and sex of respondent. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology; 3. 201-209.
Exline. R. V, & Messick, D. (1967). The effects of dependency and so-
cial reinforcement upon visual behavior during an interview. British
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 6, 256-266.
Exline, R. V., Thibaut, J., Brannon, C., & Gumpert, P. (1961). Visual
interaction in relation to Machiavellianism and an unethical act.
American Psjvliologisi, 16, 396.
Exline, R. V., & Winters, L. C. (1965). Affective relations and mutual
glances in dyads. In S. S. Tomkins & C. E. bard (Eds.), Affect, cogni-
tion, and personality (pp. 319-350). New York: Springer.
Farrah, D. C.. Hirschbiel, P.. & Jay. S. (1980). Toward interactive syn-
chrony: The gaze patterns of mothers and children in three age
groups. International Journal of Behavioral Development, S. 215-
224.
Feldstein, S., & Welkowitz, J. A. (1978). A chronography of conversa-
tion: In defense of an objective approach. In A. W. Siegman & S.
Feldstein (Eds.), Nonverbal behavior and communication. Hillsdale.
NJ: Erlbaum.
Field, T. (1981). Infant arousal attention and affect during early interac-
tions. Advances in Infancy Research, 1, 57-100.
Finch, B. E.. & Wallace, C. J. (1977). Successful interpersonal skills
training with schizophrenic inpatients. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 45, 885-890.
Foddy, M. (1978). Patterns of gaze in cooperative and competitive nego-
tiation. Human Relations, 31.925-938.
Forbes, R. J., & Jackson, P. R. (1980). Nonverbal behavior and the out-
come of selection interviews. Journalof Occupational Psychology, 53,
65-72.
Frelz, B. R., Cora. R.. Tuemmler, J. M.. & Bellet. W. (1979). Counselor
nonverbal behaviors and client evaluations. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 26, 304-311.
Friedman, S., Thompson, M. A., Crawley, S., Criticos, A., Drake, D.,
lacobbo, M., Rogers, P. P.. & Richardson, L. (1976). Mutual visual
regard during mother-infant play. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 42.
427-431.
Frieze. 1. H., & Ramsey, S. J. (1976). Nonverbal maintenance of tradi-
tional sex roles. Journal of Social Issues. 32, 133-141.
Fromme, D. K.. & Beam, D. C. (1974). Dominance and sex differences
in nonverbal responses to differential eye contact. Journal of Re-
search in Personality, 8, 76-87.
95
Fry, R., & Smith. G. F. (1975). The effects of feedback and eye contact
on performance of a digit-coding task. Journal of Social Psychology,
96, 145-146.
Fugita. S. S. (1974). Effects of anxiety and approval on visual interac-
tion. Journal ol Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 586-592.
Fugita, S. S.. Agle. T. A.. Newman, [., & Walfish, N. (1977). Atlraclive-
ness, self-concept, and a methodological note about gaze behavior.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3. 240-243.
Fukuhara. S. (1977). An empirical study of visual behavior in social
interaction: E>e contact in a dyad as affected by interaction distance
and the affiliation need. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, I T. 30-38.
Galassi, J. P., Hollandsworth, J. G.. Radecki, J. C., Gay, M. L., Howe,
M. R., & Evans, C. L. (1976). Behavioral performance in the valida-
tion of an assertiveness scale. Behavior Therapy. 7, 447-452.
Gale, A., Kingsley, E., Brookes. S.. & Smith. D. (1978). Cortical arousal
and social intimacy in the human female under different conditions
of eye contact. Behavioral Processes, 3. 271-275.
Gale, A.. Lucas. B., Nissim, R., & Harpham. D. (1972). Some EEC
correlates of face-to-face contact. British Journal of Social and Clini-
cal Psychology. II. 326-332.
Gale, A., Spratt, G., Chapman. A. J., & Smallbone, A. (1975). EEG
correlates of eye contact and interpersonal distance. Biological Psy-
chology. 3. 237-245.
Garcia, E. E., & Trujillo. A. (1977). The effects of experimenter facial
orientation during imitation maintenance. Journal of Applied Behav-
ior Analysis, 10. 95.
Gardin, H., Kaplan, K. J.. Firestone, I. J., & Cowan, G. A. (1973). Prox-
emic effects on cooperation, attitude, and approach-avoidance in a
Prisoner's Dilemma game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 21. 13-18.
Glasgow. R. E.. & Arkowitz, H. (1975). The behavioral assessment of
male and female social competence in dyadic heterosexual interac-
tions. Behavior Therapy, 6.488-498.
Goffman. E. (1964). Behavior in public places. New York: Free Press.
Goldberg, G. N.. KJesler, C. A., & Collins, B. E. (1969). Visual behavior
and face-to-face distance during interaction. Sociometry, 32. 43-53.
Goldberg, G. N.. & Mettee, D. R. (1969). Likingand perceived commu-
nication potential as determinants of looking at another. Psycho-
nomic Science. 16, 277-278.
Goldberg, M. L., & Wellens. A. R. (1979). A comparison of nonverbal
compensatory behaviors within direct fact-to-face and television-me-
diated interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 250-260.
Goldman. M. (1980). Effect of eye contact and distance on the verbal
reinforcement of attitude. Journal of Social Psychology, 111, 73-78.
Goldman, M.. & Fordyce, J. (1983). Prosocial behavior as affected by
eye contact, touch, and voice expression. Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 121. 125-129.
Goldstein, M. A., Kilroy. M. C., & Van de Voort, D. (1976). Gaze as a
function of conversation and degree of love. Journal of Psychology.
92. 227-234.
Graham, F. K., & Clifton, R. K. (1966). Heart-rate change as a compo-
nent of the orienting response. Psychological Bulletin, 65, 305-320.
Graham, J. A.. & Argyle. M. (1975). The effects of different patterns of
gaze combined with different facial expressions on impression forma-
tion. Journal of Human Movement Studies. I, 178-182.
Greenbaum. P.. & Rosenfeld, H. M. (1978). Patterns of avoidance in
response to interpersonal staring and proximity: Effects of bystanders
on drivers at a traffic intersection. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 36, 575-587.
Greenwald, D. P. (1977). The behavioral assessment of differences in
social skill and social anxiety in female college students. Behavior
Therapy. 8. 925-937.
Griffitt. W., May, J., & Veitch, R. (1974). Sexual stimulation and inter-
personal behavior: Heterosexual evaluative responses, visual behav-
 96 CHRIS L. KLEINKE
ior, and physical proximity. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology. 30. 367-377.
Haase, R. F. & Tepper, D. T. (1972). Nonverbal components ofem-
pathie communication. Journal of Counseling Ps\tiiologv. 19, 417-
424.
Harper. R. G., Wiens, A. N., & Matarazzo, J. D. (1978). Nonverbal
communication: The state of/heart. New York: Wiley.
Harris, F. C, & Ciminero, A. R. (1978). The effect of witnessing conse-
quences on the behavioral recordingof experimental observers. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, II. 513-521.
Harris, L. (1968). Looks by preschoolers at the experimenter in a
choice-of-toys game: Effects of experimenter and age of child. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 6. 493-500.
Harris. S. E. (1978). Schizophrenics' mutual glance patterns. Psychia-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
try, 41, 83-91.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Harvey. J. H., Yarkin, K. L., Lighlner. J. M., & Town, J. P. (1980).
Unsolicited interpretation and recall of interpersonal events. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 38. 551-568.
Hasselt, J. (1978). .-1 primer of psychopltysiology. San Francisco: Free-
man.
Hemsley. G. D.. & Doob, A. N. (1978). The effect of looking behavior
on perceptions of a communicator's credibility. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology. 8. 136-144.
Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, it?.v. and nonverbal commu-
nication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hillabrant, W. (1974). The influence of locomotion and gaze direction
on perceptions of interacting persons. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin. I. 237-239.
Ho, R.. & Mitchell, S. (1982). Students' nonverbal reactions to tutors'
warm/cold behavior. Journal of Social Psychology. 118. 121-130.
Hobson, G. N., Strongman, K. T. Bull, D., & Craig. G. (1973). Anxiety
and gaze aversion in dyadic encounters. British Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 12. 122-129.
Hughes, J., & Goldman, M. (1978). Eye contact, facial expression, sex,
and the violation of personal space. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46.
579-584.
Ickes, W. (1981). Sex role influences in dyadic interaction: A theoretical
model. In C. Mayo & N. M. Henley (Eds.). Gender and nonverbal
behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Ickes, W. (1984). Compositions in black and white: Determinants of
interaction in interracial dyads. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 47. 330-341.
Ickes, W.. & Barnes. R. D. (1978). Boys and girls together—and alien-
ated: On enacting stereotyped sex roles in mixed-sex dyads. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 669-683.
Ickes, W., Patterson, M. L.. Rajecki, D. W.. & Tanford, S. (1982). Behav-
ioral and cognitive consequences of reciprocal versus compensatory
responses to preinteraction expectancies. Social Cognition, I. 160-
190.
Ickes, W., & Turner, M. (1983). On the social advantages of having an
older, opposite-sex sibling: Birth order influences in mixed-sex dyads.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45. 210-222.
Imada, A. S., & Hakel. M. D. (1977). Influence of nonverbal communi-
cation and rater proximity on impressions and decisions in simulated
employment interviews. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 62.295-300.
Jellison, J. M., & Ickes, W. J. (1974). The power of the glance: Desire to
see and be seen in cooperative and competitive situations. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology. 10, 444-450.
Jones, E. E.. & Davis. K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attri-
bution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances
in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2. pp. 219-266). New York:
Academic Press.
Jones, E. E., & McGillis, D. (1976). Correspondent inferences and the
attribution cube: A comparative reappraisal. In J. H. Harvey, W. J.
Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), Neirdirections in attribution research (Vol.
1, pp. 389-420). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jones, E. E., & Wortman, C. D. (1973). Ingratiation: An atlributional
approach. Morristown. NJ: General Learning Press.
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory. In D. Levine (Ed.). Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192-238). Lincoln: Univer-
sity of Nebraska Press.
Kelley, H. H., & Michela. J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research.
In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychol-
ogy (Vol. 31, pp. 457-501). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Kelly, E. W. (1978). Effects of counselor's eye contact on student-clients'
perceptions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46, 627-632.
Kelly, E. W., & True. J. H. (1980). Eye contact and communication of
facilitation conditions. Perceptual and Malar Skills. 51. 815-820.
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interac-
tion. Acta Psychologica, 26. 22-63.
Kendon, A. (1978). Looking in conversation and the regulation of turns
at talk: A comment on the papers of G. Beattie and D. R. R utter et
al. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 23-24.
Kendon. A., & Cook, M. (1969). The consistency of gaze patterns in
social interaction. British Journal of Psychology', 60, 481-494.
Kendon. A.. & Ferber, A. (1973). A description of some human greet-
ings. In P. M. Michael & J. H. Cook (Eds.), Comparative ecology and
behavior of primates. London: Academic Press.
KJmble. C. E., Forte, R. A., & Yoshikawa, J. C. (1981). Nonverbal con-
comitants of enacted emotional intensity and positivity: Visual and
vocal behavior. Journal of Personality. 49, 271-283.
KJmble, C. E., & Olszewski, D. A. (1980). Gaze and emotional expres-
sion: The effects of message positivity-negativiiy and emotional in-
tensity. Journal of Research in Personality, 14. 60-69.
Kirkland. J., & Lewis, C. (1976). Glance, look, gaze, and stare: A vocab-
ulary for eye-fixation research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 43, 1278.
Kleck, R. E. (1968). Physical stigma and nonverbal cues emitted inface-
lo-face interaction. Human Relations, 21, 19-28.
Kleck, R. E.. Buck, P. L., Goller, W. L., London, R. S.. Pfeiffer, J. R., &
Vukcevic, D. P. (1968). The effect of stigmatizing conditions on the
use of personal space. Psychological Reports, 23. 1 1 1 - 1 1 8 .
KJeck, R. E., & Nuessle, W. (1968). Congruence between the indicative
and communicative functions of eye contact in interpersonal re-
lations. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7. 241-246.
Kleck, R. E.. & Rubenstein. C. (1975). Physical attractiveness, per-
ceived attitude similarity, and interpersonal attraction m an opposite-
sex encou nter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 107-
114.
KJeck, R. E., & Strenta. A. (1980). Perceptions of the impact of nega-
tively valued physical characteristics on social interaction. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 861-873.
KJeinke, C. L. (1972). Interpersonal attraction as it relates to gaze and
. distance between people. Representative Research in Social Psychol-
ogy. 3. 105-120.
Kleinke, C. L. (1975). l-'irst impressions: The psychology of encounter-
ing others. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kleinke, C. L. (1977). Compliance to requests made by gazing and
touching experimenters in field settings. Journal of Experimental So-
cial Psychology. 13. 218-223.
KJeinke. C. L. (1978). Self-Perception: The psychology of personal
awareness. San Francisco: Freeman.
KJeinke, C. L. (1979). Effects of personal evaluations. In G. J. Chelune
and Associates, Self-disclosure: Origins, patterns, and implications of
openess in interpersonal relations (pp. 57-59). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Kleinke. C. L. (1980). Interaction between gaze and legitimacy of re-
quest on compliance in a field setting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior.
5,3-12.
KJeinke, C. L. (1981, April). A note on the relationship between gaze
and arousal. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Psycho-
logical Association. Los Angeles.
 GAZE AND EYE CONTACT
KJeinke, C. L. (1986). Meeting and undemanding people. New York:
Freeman.
Kleinke, C. L., Busies, A. A., Meeker. F. B., & Sianeski, R. A. (1973).
Effects of self-attributed and oiher-aitributed gaze on interpersonal
evaluations between males and females. Journal of Experimental So-
cial Psychology, 9, 154-163.
KJeinke, C. L.. Desautels, M. S., & Knapp, B. E. (1977). Adult gaze
and affective and visual responses of preschool children. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 131. 321-322.
KJeinke, C. L., Kahn, M. L., & Tully, T. B. (1979). First impressions of
talking rales in opposite sex and same sex interactions. Social Behav-
ior and Personality, 7, 81 -91.
KJeinke, C. L., Meeker, F. B., & La Fong, C. (1974). Effects of gaze,
.touch, and use of name on evaluation of "engaged" couples. Journal
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
of Research in Personality. 7. 368-373.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
KJeinke, C. L., & Pohlen, P. D. (1971). Affective and emotional re-
sponses as a function of other person's gaze and cooperativeness in a
two-person game. Journal of Persona/in- and Social Psychology, 17,
308-313.
KJeinke, C. L., & Singer. D. A. (1979). Influence of gaze on compliance
with demanding and conciliatory requests in a field setting. Personal-
ity and Social Psychology Bulletin. 5. 387-390.
KJeinke, C. L.. Sianeski, R. A.. & Berger, D. E. (1975). Evaluation of
an interviewer as a function of interviewer gaze, reinforcement of
subject gaze, and interviewer attractiveness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 6. 7-12.
KJeinke, C. L., Staneski, R. A.. & Pipp, S. L. (1975). Effects of gaze,
distance, and attractiveness on males' first impressions of females.
Representative Research in Social Psychology, 6, 7-12.
KJeinke, C. L., Staneskj, R. A., & Weaver. P. (1972). Evaluation of a
person who uses another's name in ingratiating and noningratiating
situations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 457-466.
KJeinke, C. L., & Tully, T. B. (1979). Influence of talking level on percep-
tions of counselors. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 26, 23-29.
KJeinke, C. L., & Walton, J. H. (1982). Influence of reinforced smiling
on affective responses in an interview. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology. 42. 557-565.
Kmiecik, C., Mausar, P., & Banziger, G. (1979). Attractiveness and in-
terpersonal space. Journal of Social Psychology: 108, 277-278.
Knapp, M. L. (1978). Nonverbal communication in human interaction.
New York: Holt, Rineharl & Winston.
Knapp. M. L.. Hart, R. P., Fredrich, G. W., & Shulman, G. M. (1973).
The rhetoric of good-bye: Verbal and nonverbal correlates of human
leave taking. Speech Monographs. 40, 182-198.
Knight, D. J., Langmeyer, D., & Lundgren, D. C. (1973). Eye-contact,
distance, and affiliation: The role of observer bias. Sociomerry. 36,
390-401.
Knowles, E. S. 11977. August). Affective and cognitive mediators of spa-
tial behavior. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psycho-
logical Association, San Francisco.
Kraut, R. E., & Poe, D. (1980). Behavioral roots of person perception:
The deception judgments of customs inspectors and laymen. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology: 39. 784-798.
Krop, H., Messinger, J.. & Reiner, C. (1973). Increasing eye contact by
covert reinforcement. Interpersonal Development, 4, 51-57.
LaCrosse, M. B. (1975). Nonverbal behavior and perceived counselor
attractiveness and persuasiveness. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
22, 563-566.
LaFrance, M., & Carmen, B. (1980). The nonverbal display of androg-
yny. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog); J8. 36-49.
LaFrance, M., & Mayo, C. (1976). Racial differences in gaze behavior
during conversation: Two systematic observational studies. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 547-552.
Langer, E. J. (1978). Rethinking the role of thought in social interaction.
In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in
attribution research (Vol. 2, pp. 35-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
97
Langer. E. J., Fiske, S. T., Taylor, S. E.. & Chanowitz, B. (1976). Stigma,
staring, and discomfort: A novel-stimulus hypothesis. Journal of Ex-
perimental Social Psychology, 12,451-463.
Latta, R. M. (1976). There's a method to our madness: Interpersonal
attraction as a multidimensional construct. Journal of Research in
Personality, 10, 76-82.
Lazzerini, A. J., Stephenson, G. M., & Neave, H. (1978). Eye-contact
in dyads: A test of the independence hypothesis. British Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 17. 227-229.
Leavitt, L. A., & Donovan, W. L. (1979). Perceived infant temperament,
locus of control, and maternal physiological response to infant gaze.
Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 267-278.
LeCompte. W. F., & Rosenfeld, H. M. (1971). Effects of minimal eye
contact in the instruction period on impressions of the experimenter.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 211-220.
Lefcourt. H. M., Martin, R. A., Pick, C. M.. & Saleh, W. E. (1985).
Locus of control for affiliation and behavior in social interactions.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 48. 755-759.
Lefcourt, H. M., & Wine, J. (1969). Internal versus external control
of reinforcement and the development of attention in experimental
situations. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science. 1, 167-181.
Lefebvre, L. M. (1975). Encoding and decoding of ingraliation in
modes of smiling and gaze. British Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology. 14, 33-42.
Lesko, W. A.. & Schneider, F. W. (1978). Effects of speaking order and
speaker gaze level on interpersonal gaze in a triad. Journal of Social
Psychology, 105. 185-195.
Levine, M. H., & Sutton-Smith, B. (1973). Effects of age, sex, and task
on visual behavior during dyadic interaction. Developmental Psychol-
ogy. 9, 400-405.
Lewis, W. L.. & Fry. W. R. (1977). Effects of visual access and orienta-
tion on the discovery of integrative bargaining alternatives. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Performance. 20, 75-92.
Libby, W. L. (1970). Eye contact and direction of looking as stable indi-
vidual differences. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality,
4.303-312.
Libby, W. L., & Yaklevich, D. (1973). Personality determinants of eye
contact and direction of gaze aversion. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology. 27, 197-206.
Lim, B. (1972). Interpretations from pictures: The effects on judgments
of intimacy of varying social context and eye contact. Journalism
Abstracts, 10. 152-153.
Lochman, J. E., & Allen, G. (1981). Nonverbal communicatoin of cou-
ples in conflict. Journal of Research in Personality, 15, 253-269.
Machovec, F. J. (1976). The evil eye: Superstition or hypnotic phenome-
non? American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis. 19, 74-79.
Mancuso, J. C. Litchford, G. B., Wilson, S. D., Harrigan, J. A., & Le-
hrer, R. (1983). Inferences of mental illness from noninvolvement.
Journal of Personality, 51, 49-61.
Mandler, G. (1975). Mind and emotion. New York: Wiley.
Marshall, G. D., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1979). Affective consequences of
inadequately explained physiological arousal. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 37, 970-988.
Martin, W. W., & Gardner, S. N. (1979). The relative effects of eye-gaze
and smiling on arousal in asocial situations. Journal of Psychology,
102, 253-259.
Martin, W. W.. & Rovira. M. L. (1981). An experimental analysis of
discriminability and bias in eye-gaze judgment. Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 5, 155-163.
Maslach, C. (1979a). The emotional consequences of arousal without
reason. In C. E. Izard (Ed.). Emotions in personality and psychopa-
thologyipp. 565-590). New York: Plenum Press.
Maslach, C. (1979b). Negative emotional biasing of unexplained
arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37. 953-969.
Massie. H. N. (1978). Blind ratings of mother-infant interaction in
 98 CHRIS L. KLEINKE
home movies of prepsycholic and normal infants. American Journal
of Psychiatry. 13, 1371-1374.
McCauIey. O, Coleman, O., & De Fusco, P. (1978). Commuter's eye
contact with strangers in city and suburban train stations: Evidence
of short-term adaptation to interpersonal overload in the city. Envi-
ronmental Psycholog)'and Nonverbal Behavior, 2, 215-225.
McClintock, C. G., & Hunt. R. G. (1975). Nonverbal indicators of
affect and deception in an interview setting. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 5, 54-67.
Mehrabian, A. (1968a). Inference of attitudes from the posture, orienta-
tion, and distance of a communicator. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 32, 296-308.
Mehrabian. A. (1968b). Relationship of attitude to seated posture, ori-
entation, and distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
10. 26-30.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Mehrabian. A. (1971). Nonverbal betrayal of feeling. Journal of Experi-
mental Research in Personality, 5, 64-73.
Mehrabian, A., & Friar, J. T. (1969). Encoding of attitude by a seated
communicator via posture and position cues. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 31. 330-336.
Mehrabian, A., & Williams, M. (1969). Nonverbal concomitants of per-
ceived and intended persuasiveness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 13, 37-58.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.
Mischel, W. (1970). Sex-typing and socialization. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.).
Carmichaet's manual of child psychology (pp. 3-72). New \brk: Wi-
ley.
Modigliani. A. (1971). Embarrassment, facework. and eye contact: Test-
ing a theory of embarrassment. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 17. 15-24.
Morlev, I. E.. & Stephenson. G. M. (1969). Interpersonal and inlerparty
exchange: A laboratory simulation of an industrial negotiation at the
plant level. British Journal of Psychology, 60, 543-545.
Morley. I. E., & Stephenson. G. M. (1970a). Formality in experimental
negotiations: A validity study. British Journal of Psychology. 61. 383-
384.
Morley, I. E.. & Stephenson. G. M. (1970b). Strength of case, communi-
cation systems and outcomes of simulated negotiations: Some social
psychological aspects of bargaining. Industrial Relations Journal, I,
19-29.
Morris. R. J.. & O'Neill, J. H. (1976). Teaching instruction following to
severely retarded youth: The establishment of eye contact. Scandina-
vian Journal of Behavior Therapy. 5. 167-178.
Muirhead, R. D., & Goldman, M. (1979). Mutual eye contact as
affected by seating position, sex and age. Journal of Social Psychology,
109, 201-206.
Naiman, T. H.. & Breed, G. (1974). Gaze duration as a cue for judging
conversational lone. Representative Research in Social Psn'hology, 5,
115-122.
Natale, M. (1977). Induction of mood states and their effect on gaze
behaviors. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 960.
Neely, W. T., Cherulnik, P. D., & Russ, R. G. (1977). Interviewees' re-
ported level of comfort as a function of an interviewer's visual atten-
tion. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 44. 1073-1074.
Nevill, D. (1974). Experimental manipulation of dependency motiva-
tion and its effects on eye contact and measure of field dependency.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 72-79.
Newman, J., & McCauIey. C. (1977). Eye contact with strangers in city,
suburb, and small town. Environment and Behavior, 9, 547-558.
Nichols, K. A., & Champness, B. G. (1971). Eye gaze and the GSR.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7. 623-626.
Nisbetl, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know:
Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review. 84. 231-
259.
Noller. P. (1980). Gaze in married couples. Journal of Nonverbal Behav-
ior, 5, 115-129.
Norton, R. W., & Pettegrew, L. S. (1979). Attentiveness as a style of
communication: A structural analysis. Communication Monographs,
46, 13-26.
Obrist, P. A. {1976). The cardiovascular-behavioral interaction—as it
appears today. Psychophysiology, 13.95-107.
Ortega y Gasset, J. (1957). Man and people. New York: Norton.
Otteson, J. P., & Otteson. C. R. (1980). Effect of teacher's gaze on chil-
dren's story recall. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 50. 35-42.
Patterson, M. L. (1973). Stability of nonverbal immediacy behaviors.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 97-109.
Patterson, M. L. (1975). Eye-contact and distance: A re-examination of
measurement problems. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
1, 600-603.
Patterson, M. L. (1976). An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy.
Psychological Revien; 83. 235-245.
Patterson, M. L. (1977). Interpersonal distance, affect, and equilibrium
theory. Journalof Social Psychology, 707.205-214.
Patterson, M. L. (1978). Arousal change and cognitive labeling: Pursu-
ing the mediators of intimacy exchange. Environmental Psychology
and Nonverbal Behavior, J, 17-22.
Patterson, M. L. (1982). A sequential functional model of nonverbal
exchange. Psychological Re\'ien; 89, 231-249.
Patterson, M. L. (1983). Nonverbal behavior: A functional perspective.
New York: Springer.
Patterson, M. L.. Jordan. A., Hogan. M. B., & Frerker. D. (1981). Effects
of nonverbal intimacy on arousal and behavior adjustment. Journal
of Nonverbal Behavior. 5, 184-198.
Pedersen, D. M. (1977). Relationship of ratings of classroom perfor-
mance and enjoyment with seat selection. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 45. 601-602.
Peery, J. C., & Stern, D. N. (1976). Gaze duration frequency distribu-
tions during mother-infant interaction. Journal of Genetic Psychol-
ogy. 129. 45-55.
Pellegrini, R. J., Hicks, R. A., & Gordon, L. (1970). The effects of an
approval-seeking induction on eye-contact in dyads. British Journal
of Social a/id Clinical Psychology, 9, 373-374.
Pittman, T. S., & Pittman. N. L. (1980). Deprivation of control and the
attribution process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39.
377-389.
Post. B., & Hetherington, E. M. (1974). Sex differences in the use of
proximity and eye contact in judgments of affiliation in preschool
children. Developmental Psychology, 10, 881-889.
Rago, W. V. (1977). Eye gaze and dominance heirarchy in profoundly
mentally retarded males. American Journal of Menial Deficiency, 82,
145-148.
Rajecki, D. W., Ickes, W.. & Tanford, S. (1981). Locus of control and
reactions to strangers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7,
282-289.
Reis, H. T, & Halek. D. (1976). On the role of arousal response to a
staring individual. Unpublished manuscript, University of Rochester.
Reis, H. T, & Werner, A. (1974, April). Some inter- and intrapersonal
consequences of eye contact. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Eastern Psychological Association. Philadelphia.
Riggio, R. E., & Friedman. H. S. (1983). Individual differences and cues
to deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; 45, 899-
915.
Rime. S., & McCusker, L. (1976). Visual behavior in social interaction:
The validity of eye-contact measures under different conditions of
observation. British Journal of Psychology. 67, 507-514.
Robson. K. S., Pedersen, F. A., & Moss, H. A. (1969). Developmental
observations of diadic gazing in relation to the fear of strangers and
social approach behavior. Child Development. 40, 619-627.
Romano, J. M., & Bellack, A. S. (1980). Social validation of a compo-
nent model of assertive behavior. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical
Psychology, 48.478-490.
Rosenfeld. H. M. (1978). Conversational control functions ofnon verbal
 GAZE AND EYE CONTACT
behavior. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldsiein (Eds.), Nonverbal behavior
and communication. Hillsdalc, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rubin, 3. Z., Steinberg. B. D., & Gerrein, J. R. (1974). How to obtain
the right of way: An experimental analysis of behavior at intersec-
tions. Perceptual and.Motor Skills, 19, 1263-1274.
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 16. 265-273.
Russo, N. F. (1975). Eye contact, interpersonal distance, and the equi-
librium theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31,
497-502.
Rutter, D. R. (1973). Visual interaction in psychiatric patients: A re-
view. British Journal of Psychiatry, 123, 193-202.
Rutter, D. R. (1976). Visual interaction in recently admitted and
chronic long-stay schizophrenic patients. British Journal of Social
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
and Clinical Psychology. 15. 295-303.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Rulier, D. R. (1977). Visual interaction and speech patterning in remit-
ted and acute schizophrenic patients. British Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology; 16, 357-361.
Rutter, D. R. (1978). Visual interaction in schizophrenic patients: The
timing of looks. Briiish Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17.
281-282.
Rutter. D. R., & Stephenson. G. M. (1979). The functions of looking:
Effects of friendship on gaze. British Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology. 18. 203-205.
Rutler, D. R., Stephenson, G. M., Ayling, K.. & White, P. A. (1978).
The timing of looks in dyadic conversation. British Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology. 16. 191-192.
Rutler. D. R., Stephenson, G. M., Lazzerini, A. J., Ayling, K., & White.
P. A. (1977). Eye-contact: A chance product of individual looking?
Briiish Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 16, 191 -192.
Sartre. J. P. (1956). Being ami nothingness. New York: Philosophical
Library. (Original work published 1942)
Scaife, M..& Bruner. J. S. (1975). The capacity for joint visual attention
in the infant. Naiure, 25J, 265-266.
Schachter, S. (1964). The interaction of cognitive and physiological
components of emotional state. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advance-; in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 49-86). New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Schaeffer, G. H., & Patterson, M. L. (1980). Intimacy, arousal, and small
group crowding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38,
283-290.
Scheman, J. D., & Lockard, J. S. (1979). Development of gaze aversion
in children. Child Development, 50. 594-596.
Scherer, S. E. (1974). Influence of proximity and eye contact on impres-
sion formation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 38, 538.
Scherer, S. E., & Schiff, M. R. (1973). Perceived intimacy, physical dis-
tance, and eye contact. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 36, 835-841.
Scherwitz, L., & Helmreich. R. (1973). Interactive effects of eye contact
and verbal content on interpersonal attraction in dyads. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology; 25. 6-14.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, so-
cial identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Schneider, F. W., Coutts, L. M., & Garrett, W. A. (1977). Interpersonal
gaze in a triad as a function of sex. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 44,
184.
Schulz, R.. & Barefoot. J. (1974). Nonverbal responses and affiliative
conflict theory. Briiish Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13,
1-7.
Shetland, R. L., & Johnson. M. P. (1978). Bystander behavior and kine-
sics: The interaction between helper and victim. Environmental Psy-
chology and Nonverbal Behavior, 2, 181 -190.
Shroul. P. E., & Fiske. D. W. (1981). Nonverbal behaviors and social
evaluation. Journal of Personality, 49, 115-128.
Simmel. G. (1921). The sociology of the senses: Visual interaction. In
R. E. Park & E. W. Burgess (Eds.). Introduction to the science of soci-
ology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
99
Sitton. S. C, & Griffin, S. T. (1981). Detection of deception from clients'
eye contact patterns. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 28, 269-271.
Slane, S.. Dragan, W., Crandall, C. J., & Payne, P. (1980). Stress effects
on the nonverbal behavior of repressers and sensitizers. Journal of
Psychology, 106, 101-109.
Smith, B. J., Sanford, F, & Goldman, M. (1977). Norm violations, sex,
and the "blank stare." Journalof Social Psychology, 103. 49-55.
Smith, R. J., & Knowles, E. S. (1978). Attributional consequences of
personal space invasions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
4, 429-433.
Smith, R. J., & Knowles, E. S. (1979). Affective and cognitive mediators
of reactions to spatial invasions. Journalof Experimental Social Psy-
chology. 15. 437-452.
Sn\der, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. JO, 526-537.
Snyder, M., Grether. J.. & Keller, K. (1974). Staring and compliance: A
field experiment on hitchhiking. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy. 4. 165-170.
Snyder, R. A., & Sutker, L. W. (1977). The measurement of the con-
struct of dominance and its relationship to nonverbal behavior. Jour-
nal of Psychology, 97, 227-230.
Sodikoff, C. L.. Firestone, I. J.. & Kaplan. K. J. (1974). Distance match-
ing and distance equilibrium in the interview dyad. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 243-245.
Staneski. R. A.. & KJeinke.C. L. (1978. April). Nondependencetanven
verbal and nonverbal measures of attraction. Paper presented at the
meeting of the Western Psychological Association, San Francisco.
Staneski, R. A., Kleinke, C. L., & Meeker, F. B. (1977). Effects of ingrati-
ation, touch, and use of name on evaluation of job applicants and
interviewers. Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 13-19.
Stanley, G., & Martin, D.S.(I968). Eye-contact and the recall of mate-
rial involving competitive and noncompetitive associations. Psycho-
mimic Science. 11. 337-338.
Stass, J. W., & Willis. F. N. (1967). Eye-contact, pupil dilation, and per-
sonal preference. Psychonotnic Science. 7, 375-376.
Stephenson. G. M., & Rutter, D. R. (1970). Eye-contact, distance, and
affiliation: A re-evaluation. Briiish Joiirna/ofSocialandClinicalPsy-
chology. 61, 385-393.
Stephenson, G. M.. Rutter, D. R.. & Dore, S. R. (1973). Visual interac-
tion and distance. Briiish Journal of Psychology. 64. 251-257.
Stevenson, B. (1967). The home book of quotations. New York: Dodd
Mead.
Strom. J. C.& Buck, R. W. (1979). Staringand participants'sex: Physi-
ological and subjective reactive responses. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin. 5. 114-117.
Sundstrom. E. (1978). A test of equilibrium theory: Effects of topic inti-
macy and proximity on verbal and nonverbal behavior in pairs of
friends and strangers. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Be-
havior. 3, 3-16.
Tankard, J. W. (1970). Effects of eye position on person perception. Per-
ceptual and Motor Skills. 31. 883-893.
Taylor. S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution:
Topof the head phenomena. In L. Berkowiu (Ed.), Advances in exper-
imental social psychology (Vol. I I , pp. 249-288). New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Tessler, R.. & Sushelsky, L. (1978). Effects of eye contact and social sta-
tus on the perception of a job applicant in an employment interview-
ing situation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 13, 338-347.
Thayer. S. (1969). The effect of interpersonal looking duration on domi-
nancejudgments. Journalof Social Psychology, 79. 285-286.
Thayer, S. (1977). Children's detection of on-face and off-face gazes.
Developmental Psychology. 13. 673-674.
Thayer. S.. & Schiff, W. (1974). Observer judgment of social interaction:
Eye contact and relationship inferences. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 30. 1 10-1 14.
 100 CHRIS L. KLEINKE
Thayer. S.. & Scruff, W. (1975). Eye-contact, facial expression, and the
experience of time. Journal of Social Psychology, 95. I17-124.
Thayer, S., & Schiff, W. (1977). Gazing patterns and attribution of sex-
ual involvement. Journal of Social Psychology, 101, 235-246.
Thompson. T. L. (1982). Gaze toward and avoidance of the handi-
capped: A field experiment. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 6. 188-
195.
Timney, B..& London, H . ( I 9 7 3 ) . Body language concomitants of per-
suasiveness and persuasibility in dyadic interaction. International
Journal of Group Tensions, 3. 48-67.
Tipton, R. M., & Rymer. R. A. (1978). A laboratory study of the effects
of varying levels of counselor eye contact on client-focused and prob-
lem-focused counseling styles. Journal ofCounseling Psychology. 25,
200-204.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Tomkins, S. S. (1963). Affect, imagery, consciousness (Vol. 2). New \brk:
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Springer.
Valentine, M. E. (1980). The attenuating influence of gaze upon the
bystander intervention effect. Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 197-
203.
Valentine, M. E..& Ehrlichman, H.( 1979). Interpersonal gaze and help-
ing behavior. Journal of Social Psychology; in?, 193-198.
Van Houten, R., Nau, P. A., MacKenzie-Keating, S. E.. Sameoto. D.,
& Colavecchia, B. (1982). An analysis of some variables influencing
the effectiveness of reprimands. Journal at Applied Behavior Analy-
sis, 15. 65-83.
Vaughan, B. E., & Waters, E. (1981). Attention structure, sociometric
status, and dominance: Interrelations, behavioral correlates, and rela-
tionships to social competence. Developmental Psychology, 17. 275-
288.
Velten, E. (1968). A laboratory task for induction of mood states. Be-
havior Research and Therapy, 6, 473-482.
Walsh. N. A.. Meister, L. A., & Kleinke, C. L. (1977). Interpersonal
attraction and visual behavior as a function of perceived arousal and
evaluation by an opposite sex person. Journal of Social Psychology,
103. 65-74.
Watson. O. M. (1970). Proxemic behavior: A cross-cultural study. The
Hague. The Netherlands: Mouton.
Waxer, P. (1974). Nonverbal cues for depression. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology. 83, 319-322.
Wellens. A. R.. & Faletti, M. V. (1978). Interrelationships of six mea-
sures of interpersonal attraction. Psychological Reports, 42, 1022.
Wheeler, R. W., Baron, J. C., Michell, S., & Ginsburg, H. J. (1979). Eye
contact and the perception of intelligence. Bulletin of the Psycho-
nomic Society. 13, 101-102.
Wichman, H. (1970). Effects of isolation and communication on coop-
eration i n a two-person game. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology: 16. 114-120.
Wicker, A. W. (1979). An introduction to ecological psychology. Monte-
rey. CA: Brooks/Cole.
Wicklund, R. A. (1975). Objective self-awareness. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 262-
269). New York: Academic Press.
Wiens, A. N.. Harper, R. G., & Matarazzo, J. D. (1980). Personality
correlates of nonverbal interview behavior. Journal of Clinical Psy-
chology, 36, 205-215.
Word. C. Q, Zanna, M. P.. & Cooper, J. (1974). The nonverbal media-
tion of self-fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 10. 109-120.
Vbshida, F, & lida, T. (1981). An analysis of visual behaviors in conver-
sational dyads. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
20, 109-118.
Zajonc. R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no infer-
ences. American Psychologist. 35. 151-175.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Brody. G. H. (1975). Race and modeling influ-
ences on the interpersonal play patterns of boys. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology. 67. 591-598.
Received June 3, 1985
Revision received December 9, 1985 •