Download Running Head: EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION 1 In the Eye of

Running Head: EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
In the Eye of the Beholder: Eye Contact Increases Resistance to Persuasion
Frances S. Chen1*, Julia A. Minson2*, Maren Schöne1, and Markus Heinrichs1
1
Department of Psychology, Laboratory for Biological and Personality Psychology,
University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
2
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
*These authors contributed equally to the work.
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE – INVITED FOR RESUBMISSION
Word Count: 4000
Reference Count: 24
Corresponding Author:
Frances S. Chen
Department of Psychology
Laboratory for Biological
and Personality Psychology
Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg
Stefan-Meier-Strasse 8
D-79104 Freiburg, Germany
Tel:
+49-(0)761-203-3029
Fax:
+49-(0)761-203-3023
E-mail:
[email protected]
1 EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
2
Abstract
Popular belief holds that eye contact increases persuasion success, and prior research suggests
that speakers who direct gaze towards their listeners are perceived as more persuasive. In
contrast, we demonstrate that more eye contact between the listener and speaker during
communication of a counter-attitudinal message predicts less persuasion. In Study 1,
participants freely watched videos of speakers expressing various views on controversial
socio-political issues. Greater direct gaze at the speaker’s eyes was associated with lesser
attitude change in the direction advocated by the speaker. In Study 2, we instructed
participants to look at either the eyes or the mouth of the speakers in the videos. Intentionally
maintaining direct eye contact again led to less persuasion than gazing at the mouth. These
findings suggest that striving to maintain eye contact may be counter-productive across a
variety of persuasion contexts.
(138 words)
Keywords: conflict, attitudes, eye tracking, gaze behavior, face processing
EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
3
Successful social functioning in all spheres of life, ranging from marital decisionmaking to international diplomacy, requires individuals to expose themselves to the opposing
views of others. People, however, often react with aversion to holders of opposing views and
can be reluctant to change their mind on important issues (Krosnick, 1988; Lord, Ross &
Lepper, 1979; Pronin, Gilovich & Ross, 2004). Disagreement can thus be perpetuated by
partisans’ unwillingness to honestly and open-mindedly evaluate each other’s arguments and
modify their own positions accordingly.
A ubiquitous feature of social interaction is eye gaze, considered throughout human
history to be a powerful tool of interpersonal influence. From the mythology of Medusa’s
stony stare to 20th century theories of hypnosis, popular accounts of eye contact suggest that
returning eye gaze opens one up to greater influence. “Look at me when I am talking to you!”
is a frequent demand of frustrated parents, angry spouses, and parties in conflict, reflecting the
belief that eye contact aids persuasion.
Indeed, prior research has shown that eye gaze indicates attention and regulates
conversational turn-taking (Kleinke, 1986), and that information from the eyes can signal
complex mental states (Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, Raste & Plumb, 2001). However,
empirical evidence regarding the role of eye contact in persuasive communication is limited
and one-sided: prior studies generally focus on the gaze behavior of the speaker and overlook
that of the listener.
In the present research we explore the possibility that rather than opening the listener
to persuasion, direct gaze into the eyes of the speaker may instead have the opposite effect,
reducing openness to counter-attitudinal information and decreasing persuasion success. We
conducted two studies to examine the relationship between the gaze of the listener and
persuasion effectiveness. We go beyond prior research by using eyetracking technology to
EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
4
examine not simply the direction of speaker gaze, but the effect of actual eye contact on
receptiveness to opposing views, attitude strength, and persuasion.
Gaze Direction and Psychological States
Prior work has demonstrated that direct gaze is often associated with attention,
attraction and reward, and openness to social approach. Both newborn humans (Farroni,
Csibra, Simion & Johnson, 2002) and infant chimpanzees (Myowa-Yamakoshi, Tomonaga,
Tanaka & Matsuzawa, 2003) return gaze directed towards them. Direct gaze from attractive
individuals activates the ventral striatum, a brain region associated with reward processing
(Kampe, Frith, Dolan, & Frith, 2001). Intranasal administration of the neuropeptide oxytocin,
known for its central role in social approach and bonding (Insel & Young, 2001; MeyerLindenberg, Domes, Kirsch & Heinrichs, 2011), increases gazing at others’ eyes (Gamer,
Zurowski & Buchel, 2010; Guastella, Mitchell & Dadds, 2008).
These links between direct gaze and attention, attraction and reward, and openness to
social approach may be the reason that popular conceptions associate eye contact with openmindedness. It is possible, however, that this association does not extend to persuasion
contexts. Most persuasion attempts take place in the presence of some disagreement, if not
outright conflict. Thus, such situations may be best conceptualized as competitive
interactions, in which individuals strive to negate their opponent’s arguments and emerge as
the winner of the debate.
In many species, direct eye gaze can be deployed during competitive situations as a
means of asserting dominance. For example, dogs will stare an opponent in the eye during a
dominance contest (Bradshaw & Nott, 1995; Fox, 1971). In primates, direct eye gaze is a
reliable activator of the fight-or-flight response (Emery, 2000; Skuse, Morris & Lawrence,
2003). In humans, receiving direct gaze in combination with an angry expression activates the
EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
5
amygdala, a brain region responsive to potential threats (Adams, Gordon, Baird, Ambady &
Kleck, 2003).
Threatened individuals will often avert their gaze, which in many species serves as a
signal of submissiveness and can inhibit others’ aggression (Bradshaw & Nott, 1995; Van
Hooff, 1967). Gaze aversion is used in many human societies to signal deference toward a
higher status individual (Argyle & Cook, 1976; Foster, 1992). In addition, gaze aversion has
been shown to improve cognitive processing during periods of high load, perhaps by reducing
anxiety associated with the maintenance of direct gaze (Phelps, Doherty-Sneddon, &
Warnock, 2006).
In sum, whereas in affiliative contexts initiating and maintaining direct gaze is
associated with feelings of closeness and desire for social approach, direct gaze in
psychologically threatening settings can be associated with dominance assertion, anxiety, and
processing impairments. Given that most persuasion attempts take place in contexts involving
at least some degree of disagreement, the latter set of processes seems highly relevant. Rather
than being opened to greater persuasion, individuals returning direct eye gaze may instead
become more closed-minded and less willing to consider opposing arguments as they devote
mental resources to negotiating a psychologically threatening environment.
Eye Gaze and Persuasion
Prior research on speaker gaze and persuasion has found that speakers who gaze more
at listeners are rated more positively in terms of persuasiveness, likeability, and competence
(see Kleinke, 1986; Segrin, 1993). It is important to note, however, that these studies assessed
the speakers’ gaze direction, whereas the listener was free to look where he or she chose.
Thus the amount of actual eye contact between the speaker and listener, along with the
psychological implications of the listener’s gaze behavior, are unclear. Furthermore, although
EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
6
raters offered subjective evaluations of speaker persuasiveness, they did not report their preand post-communication attitudes. Thus, the design of these studies does not allow for clear
conclusions about the relationship between eye contact and attitude change in the context of
real-world disagreement.
In the current research we tracked the gaze of participants while they watched videorecorded persuasive communications on several “hot-button” political topics. We measured
participants’ actual attitudes before and after the videos to establish the effect of eye gaze on
attitude change. Additionally, we measured the strength with which participants held their
attitudes and their receptiveness to future persuasive attempts, in order to explore the
psychological process driving the relationship between eye contact and persuasion.
Study 1
In Study 1, we investigated whether spontaneous eye contact is associated with
psychological reactions to persuasive communication. Participants watched videos gathered
from Internet sources and reported their attitudes regarding the relevant issues and reactions to
the videos. This method of presenting information simulates many common modern
communicative contexts. Using pre-recorded videos allowed us to keep constant stimulus
features including speech content, speaker’s appearance, tone of voice, facial expressions, and
proximity to the viewer.
Method
Participants
Twenty students (7 male, 13 female, Mage = 20.9 years, SD = 0.9 years) from the
University of Freiburg, Germany, participated in the study in exchange for course credit.
EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
7
Attitudes questionnaire
Before the day of the experiment, participants reported their agreement with eighteen
statements about controversial socio-political issues using a 7-point Likert scale anchored at
strongly disagree (-3) and strongly agree (+3). The target issues used in Study 1 dealt with
university tuition fees, quotas for hiring women, assisted suicide, phase-out of nuclear power,
and federal referendums (Table 1). Responses were re-coded to obtain an index of premanipulation disagreement (from strong disagreement (-3), to strong agreement (+3)) with
the views presented in the corresponding videos.
Video stimuli and eyetracking
Seven videos (Mduration = 91 sec, SD = 86 sec) were selected from Internet sources to
represent various opinions regarding the five target issues. In each video the speaker’s head
was fully visible and centered on the screen. The speaker either faced the camera directly
(three videos) or was angled slightly away from the camera with both eyes still fully visible
(four videos). Participants were told that the study was about “how different people watch
videos” and were instructed to watch the videos as they would naturally.
An iView XTM RED 250 remote eyetracker (SensoMotoric Instruments, Teltow,
Germany) collected eye position information. Eye movements were recorded at a 250 Hz
sampling rate with a spatial resolution of < 0.1 degrees and gaze position accuracy of < 0.5
degrees. The stimuli were presented on a 56 cm screen (resolution 1680 x 1050 pixels) at a
viewing distance of 62 cm. The face stimuli displayed on the screen measured approximately
18 x 24 cm.
The percentage fixation time was calculated for the eye region of the stimuli using
stimulus-specific templates. BeGaze TM (SensoMotoric Instruments, Teltow, Germany) was
used to define fixation events, using velocity-based event detection with a peak velocity
EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
8
threshold for saccades of 40 degrees per second and a minimum fixation duration of 50
milliseconds. Data from the participants’ left and right eyes were averaged.
Dependent measures
Immediately after each video, nine questions using 7-point Likert response scales
appeared sequentially on the screen. Specifically, participants were asked how receptive they
felt toward their counterpart’s views, how willing they would be to receive more information
supporting their counterpart’s view, and how willing they would be to engage in discussion
with a group of people holding the opposing view (Minson & Chen, 2012). These three items
were averaged to create a receptiveness composite (Chronbach’s alpha = .86). We also asked
participants how certain they were of their attitude, how clear they were regarding their
attitude, and how confident they were about their attitude (Tormala & Petty, 2002). These
three items were averaged to create an attitude strength composite (Chronbach’s alpha = .97).
Participants also answered three questions assessing how interesting they found the video,
how valid they found the speaker’s arguments, and how emotional they felt while watching
the video. These final three items were included to determine the specificity of relationships
between eye gaze and various psychological reactions that might be induced by the videos.
After completing the eyetracking portion of the experiment, participants again reported
their attitudes regarding the eighteen issues that they responded to prior to the experiment.
The difference between post-manipulation attitudes and pre-manipulation attitudes was
calculated to assess attitude change on individual issues. We collected no other measures.
Analysis
We used hierarchical linear modeling with robust standard errors to control for nonindependence of observations. We entered both the dependent and independent measures as
item-level variables and grouped observations by participant. We entered a dummy code for
each video to control for video-specific effects and z-scored all of the dependent variables.
EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
9
Results
Exploratory analyses
Participants spent a greater percentage of time looking at the speaker’s eyes when their
prior attitude on the target issue was more closely aligned with that of the speaker (B = 0.20, z
= 3.40, p = 0.001). This may in part explain the lay belief that eye contact is a signal of
successful persuasion: since people spontaneously look at the eyes of those they agree with,
interactions characterized by greater eye contact may be perceived as more harmonious.
Participants also spent a greater percentage of time looking at the speaker’s eyes when the
speaker’s gaze was slightly averted (B = -1.19, z = -5.15, p < 0.001). This suggests that
participants may find eye contact in persuasion contexts somewhat aversive.
Because of the effects of prior agreement and speaker’s gaze direction on viewer’s eye
gaze, we report subsequent analyses including prior agreement and speaker’s direction of gaze
(dummy coded with 0 = averted gaze, 1 = direct gaze) as covariates. There was no significant
effect of viewer’s sex on percentage of time spent gazing at the speaker’s eyes, and no
interactions between sex and prior agreement or sex and speaker’s gaze direction (all z < 1,
ns).
Eye gaze and receptiveness
Greater time spent looking at the speaker’s eyes was associated with greater
receptiveness to the speaker’s opinion (B = 0.17, z = 1.98, p < 0.05)1. When we included the
interaction between prior agreement and viewer’s eye gaze in the model, this effect dropped
to non-significance (B = 0.12, z = 1.17, ns) due to the presence of a significant interaction (B
1
All significant results reported also remain significant without inclusion of covariates in the
regression model.
EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
10
= 0.18, z = 2.42, p < 0.02).2 The positive relationship between receptiveness and eye gaze was
primarily driven by cases wherein the participant agreed with the speaker’s opinion prior to
the study (B = .33, z = 2.38, p < 0.02) and was not significant in cases wherein the participant
disagreed with the speaker’s opinion or had no prior opinion (B = 0.08, z < 1, ns).
Eye gaze and attitude change
Greater time spent looking at the speaker’s eyes reduced the persuasiveness of the
videos as reflected in the change from pre- to post-experimental attitudes (B = -0.18, z = 2.47, p < 0.02). Given the role of eye contact in real-world conflict, we were particularly
interested in cases wherein the speaker and viewer disagreed and wherein the speaker gazed
directly at the viewer. Post-hoc tests revealed that the effect was somewhat stronger in cases
where the viewer either previously disagreed with the speaker’s position or had no prior
opinion on the issue (B = -0.30, z = -1.94, p < 0.06) than when the viewer’s attitude was
previously aligned with the speaker’s (B = -0.13, z = -1.06, ns). It was also somewhat stronger
in cases of speaker direct gaze (B = -0.22, z = -1.63, p = 0.10) than in cases of speaker averted
gaze (B = -0.12, z < 1, ns).
Eye gaze and other psychological variables
Percentage of time spent looking at the speaker’s eyes did not predict participants’
self-reported attitude strength regarding the issue (B = -0.04, z = < -1, ns), ratings of how
interesting the video was (B = 0.01, z = 1.46, ns), how emotional they felt while viewing the
video (B = 0.01, z < 1, ns), nor their perceptions of the validity of the arguments in the video
(B = 0.08, z < 1, ns).
2
In all analyses we checked for interaction effects between covariates and eye gaze direction
on our variables of interest. Unless noted otherwise, the interaction terms were not significant
and were removed from analysis. EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
11
Discussion
Study 1 demonstrates that in the context of persuasive communication, spontaneous
gaze at the speaker’s eyes is correlated with prior agreement with the speaker’s opinion.
Furthermore, in cases of prior agreement, gaze at the speaker’s eyes is also correlated with
greater receptiveness. Interestingly, and in line with our theorizing regarding the potentially
threatening role of eye gaze in antagonistic social environments, greater eye gaze was also
associated with lesser persuasion success. Even controlling for level of prior agreement,
participants who spent more time gazing at the speakers’ eyes were less swayed by the
speakers’ arguments. The effect was particularly pronounced in cases where the speaker
gazed directly at the viewer, i.e. in cases of eye contact between the speaker and viewer.
Our findings that spontaneous gaze at a speaker’s eyes is associated with greater prior
agreement and (sometimes) receptiveness, but also lesser attitude shifts, highlight the
importance of the social context in interpreting the psychological meaning of eye contact.
However, the conclusions that can be drawn from Study 1 are limited by the correlational
nature of the data. In Study 2 we directly manipulate gaze direction, focusing on cases when
the viewer disagrees with the opinion advocated in the video.
Study 2
The results of Study 1 provide preliminary evidence that spontaneous gaze directed at
a speaker’s eyes reduces persuasion success. In Study 2 we directly manipulate the gaze
direction of message recipients and achieve greater experimental control by recording scripted
videos and keeping speakers consistent across opinions. Additionally, participants were
always exposed to views with which they disagreed, more closely replicating naturalistic
persuasion settings.
EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
12
If participants find eye contact with holders of opposing views psychologically
threatening, they should be less open to interaction after engaging in direct eye contact. Thus,
in Study 2 we also test whether receptiveness to interaction mediates the relationship between
eye contact and persuasion success.
Method
Participants
Forty-two students (29 male, 13 female, Mage = 23.0 years, SD = 3.5 years) from the
University of Freiburg, Germany, participated in the study in exchange for either payment (7
Euro) or course credit.
Attitudes questionnaire
As in Study 1, participants completed a survey about eighteen current socio-political
issues upon registering for the study. Target statements for Study 2 assessed participants’
attitudes about university tuition fees, quotas for hiring women, animal farming practices, and
the nuclear phase-out (Table 1).
Video stimuli and eyetracking
Eight videos of four individual students (two female, two male) were filmed for Study
2. In each video (Mduration = 140 sec, SD = 19 sec), the speaker’s head was centered against a
white background, and the speaker faced the camera directly. Each speaker was recorded for
two separate videos, each time speaking from a script either in favor of or against one of the
four target statements.
Each participant viewed four videos advocating an opinion opposite to that expressed
by the participant in the presurvey. When participants expressed no opinion about the target
issue (16%), they viewed the video expressing the majority view. Participants in the two
EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
13
conditions did not differ in their level of prior disagreement with the opinions in the videos
(t(40) = 1.00, ns).
We informed participants that we were investigating “the role of various parts of the
face in communication.” We randomly assigned participants (counterbalancing based on
participant sex) to either the eyes condition or the mouth condition and asked them to look
only at the speaker’s eyes or mouth while watching the videos. Immediately before each video
began, an instruction screen reminded participants to look only at the eyes or mouth.
The same eyetracking hardware, software, and parameters used in Study 1 were used
in Study 2. The face stimuli displayed on the screen measured approximately 9 x 18 cm.
Dependent measures
Immediately after each video, the nine questions used in Study 1 appeared on the
screen. Items measuring receptiveness and attitude strength were again averaged to create
composite variables (Chronbach’s alpha = .75 and .90, respectively). We collected no other
variables.
Analysis
The analytical approach in Study 2 followed that of Study 1. The dependent variables,
measured at the item level (Level 1), were regressed on condition (dummy coded with eyes =
1 and mouth = 0), entered at the participant level (Level 2).
Results
Manipulation check
Participants in the eyes condition gazed more at the speakers’ eyes than did
participants in the mouth condition (t(39) = 11.23, p < 0.001), and participants in the mouth
condition gazed more at the speakers’ mouths than did participants in the eyes condition
(t(39) = 7.88, p < 0.001).
EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
14
Eye contact and attitude change
Table 2 summarizes the dependent measures. As in Study 1, looking at the speaker’s
eyes decreased persuasion. Participants in the eyes condition shifted their attitudes less in the
direction advocated by the speaker than participants in the mouth condition (B = -0.47, z = 2.71, p < 0.01). Prior agreement was not a significant predictor of attitude change (B = 0.11, z
= 1.26, ns), but the analysis revealed a marginally significant interaction between condition
and prior agreement (B = -0.26, z = -1.96, p = 0.05). The effect of the manipulation was
marginally greater when participants held a weak prior opinion about the issue.
Mediating role of receptiveness
Consistent with our theorizing regarding the role of eye contact in evoking feelings of
psychological threat, participants in the eyes condition were significantly less receptive to the
counter-attitudinal information and the prospect of future exposure to the holders of such
views than participants in the mouth condition (B = -0.61, z = -3.48, p < 0.001). To examine
whether such lack of receptiveness mediated the relationship between condition and attitude
change we followed the Monte-Carlo procedure for multi-level data developed by Selig and
Preacher (2008). Having established that condition significantly affected both our dependent
variable (attitude change) and our proposed mediator (receptiveness) we next regressed
attitude change on both receptiveness and condition. We observed a significant effect of
receptiveness (B = 0.31, z = 3.02, p < 0.001) and a non-significant effect of condition (B = 0.28, z = 1.63, ns). The test for the significance of the indirect effect of condition on attitude
change yielded a 95% confidence interval that did not include zero (lower bound: - 0.38,
upper bound: - 0.05). Thus, receptiveness significantly mediated the effect of condition on
attitude change (Figure 1). Participants instructed to look at the speakers’ eyes were less
receptive to the arguments and advocates promoting the counter-attitudinal view, and thus
were less persuaded.
EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
15
Eye contact and other psychological variables
The manipulation did not significantly influence participants’ self-reported attitude
strength regarding the target issue (B = 0.11, z < 1, ns), ratings of how interesting the video
was (B = -0.32, z = -1.65, ns), how emotional they felt while watching the video (B = -0.29, z
= -1.87, ns), nor the rated validity of the presented arguments (B = -0.32, z = -1.84, ns).
General Discussion
Contrary to cultural belief and suggestions of some prior research, eye contact
decreases the success of persuasion attempts. In two studies, individuals who returned the
gaze of a speaker delivering a persuasive message were less likely to shift their attitudes in the
direction advocated than individuals who averted their gaze. In Study 1 spontaneous gaze
directed at a speaker’s eyes was associated with psychological receptiveness, driven by cases
when the viewer agreed with the opinion being presented. In Study 2, when participants were
instructed to maintain eye contact with speakers they disagreed with, they became less
receptive to the counter-attitudinal views presented and less open to future contact. This
decrease in receptiveness mediated the effect of gaze instructions on attitude change.
Prior research with both humans and other species suggests that direct gaze is often
used to assert dominance and threaten others. In competitive contexts, both giving and
receiving direct gaze can increase amygdala activation and induce anxiety or fear. It seems
plausible that anxiety and concerns about establishing and maintaining status would detract
from one’s ability to listen attentively and process counter-attitudinal information in an openminded manner. The fact that participants were less receptive to arguments by, and future
contact with, holders of opposing views when they had gazed into the speakers’ eyes, and that
this decrease in receptiveness mediated decreased persuasion, provides some initial evidence
for this psychological process.
EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
16
It is possible that direct gaze in a competitive context may activate a broad response
(perhaps akin to the sympathetic nervous system’s “fight or flight” response) that generally
inhibits attention, empathy, and the open and thoughtful consideration of multiple viewpoints.
Future research should explore the extent to which concerns with social standing, feelings of
threat, and desire for status form a coherent system of behavioral, neurological, and endocrine
responses that might inhibit information processing, persuasion, and dispute resolution.
Although in our studies gaze directed at a speaker’s eyes reduced persuasion, it is
important to keep in mind that in many settings, eye contact is associated with affiliative
behavior, openness to approach, and trust. The fact that this ubiquitous social behavior can
lead to different outcomes depending on the social context deserves attention and speaks to
the complexity of the processes at play. Given that the prevalence and meaning of eye contact
is culturally variable (Argyle & Cook, 1976; McCarthy, Lee, Itakura, & Muir, 2006),
additional research is necessary to determine the cross-cultural generalizability of these
results.
Our studies go beyond prior research by demonstrating the effect of actual eye contact
(not merely the speaker’s gaze direction) on deeply-held attitudes regarding current
controversial issues. In doing so, we overturn a common belief regarding the relationship
between eye contact and persuasion success. We suggest that the common efforts to look into
the eyes of a persuasion target and demand that they do so in return may be counterproductive
to changing hearts and minds. More broadly, our research suggests that listener gaze behavior
may serve as a readily observable and quantifiable marker of psychological states relevant for
parents and politicians, and mediators and advertisers, alike.
EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Jennifer M. D. Yoon for feedback on the manuscript. F.S.C. is
supported by a research fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
17
EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
18
References
Adams, R. B., Gordon, H. L., Baird, A. A., Ambady, N., & Kleck, R. E. (2003). Effects of
gaze on amygdala sensitivity to anger and fear faces. Science, 300, 1536.
Argyle, M., & Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutual gaze. Oxford, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001). The “Reading the
Mind in the Eyes” Test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with
Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 42, 241-251.
Bradshaw, J. W. S., & Nott, H. M. R. (1995). Social and communication behaviour of
companion dogs. In J. Serpell (Ed.), The domestic dog: its evolution, behaviour and
interactions with people. (pp. 115–130). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Emery, N. J. (2000). The eyes have it: The neuroethology, function and evolution of social
gaze. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 24, 581-604.
Farroni, T., Csibra, G., Simion, F., & Johnson, M. H. (2002). Eye contact detection in humans
from birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 99, 9602-9605.
Foster, D. A. (1992). Bargaining across borders: How to negotiate business successfully
anywhere in the world. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fox, M. W. (1971). Behaviour of wolves, dogs and related canids.: London : Jonathan Cape.
Gamer, M., Zurowski, B., & Buchel, C. (2010). Different amygdala subregions mediate
valence-related and attentional effects of oxytocin in humans. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 9400-9405.
Guastella, A., Mitchell, P., & Dadds, M. (2008). Oxytocin increases gaze to the eye region of
human faces. Biological Psychiatry, 63, 3-5.
EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
19
Insel, T. R., & Young, L. J. (2001). The neurobiology of attachment. Nature Reviews
Neuroscience, 2, 129-136.
Kampe, K. K. W., Frith, C. D., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, U. (2001). Reward value of
attractiveness and gaze. Nature, 413, 589.
Kleinke, C. L. (1986). Gaze and eye contact: A research review. Psychological Bulletin, 100,
78-100.
Krosnick, J. A. (1988). Attitude importance and attitude change. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 24, 240-255.
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization:
The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.
McCarthy, A., Lee, K., Itakura, S., & Muir, D. W. (2006). Cultural display rules drive eye
gaze during thinking. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 717-722.
Meyer-Lindenberg, A., Domes, G., Kirsch, P., & Heinrichs, M. (2011). Oxytocin and
vasopressin in the human brain: social neuropeptides for translational medicine.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12, 524-538.
Myowa-Yamakoshi, M., Tomonaga, M., Tanaka, M., & Matsuzawa, T. (2003). Preference for
human direct gaze in infant chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Cognition, 89(2), 113-124.
Phelps, F., Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Warnock, H. (2006). Functional benefits of children's
gaze aversion during questioning. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24,
577-588.
Pronin, E., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. (2004). Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: Divergent
perceptions of bias in self versus others. Psychological Review, 111(3), 781-799.
Segrin, C. (1993). The effects of nonverbal behavior on outcomes of compliance gaining
attempts. [doi: 10.1080/10510979309368393]. Communication Studies, 44, 169-187.
EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
20
Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008, June). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An
interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer
software]. Available from http://quantpsy.org/.
Skuse, D., Morris, J., & Lawrence, K. (2003). The amygdala and development of the social
brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1008, 91-101.
Van Hooff, J. A. (1967). The facial displays of the Catarrhine monkey and apes. In D. Morris
(Ed.), Primate Ethology. Chicago: Aldine.
EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
Table 1
Socio-political Issues Used in Study 1 and Study 2.
Assisted suicide should be allowed.1
Current animal farming practices (for meat production) are inhumane.2
Germany needs a mandatory quota for women in business.
The federal constitution should provide for more referendums at the federal level.1
The rapid phase-out of nuclear energy is the right decision.
Tuition fees are justified because they improve university teaching.
1
2
Only used in Study 1.
Only used in Study 2.
21
EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
22
Table 2
Psychological Outcomes as a Function of Gaze Condition in Study 2.
Eyes Condition
Mouth Condition
Group comparison
N
21
21
Attitude change
0.14 (0.44)
0.60 (0.63)
B = -0.47, z = -2.71**
Receptiveness
-0.28 (0.93)
0.60 (0.80)
B = -0.61, z = -3.48***
Attitude strength
2.85 (0.55)
2.79 (0.40)
B = 0.11, z < 1.00
Interest in video
0.45 (1.33)
0.95 (0.63)
B = -0.32, z = -1.65
Emotional
-0.49 (1.11)
0.11 (0.82)
B = -0.29, z = -1.87
Perceived validity
of arguments
-0.50 (1.10)
-0.07 (0.93)
B = -0.32, z = -1.84
Note. Standard deviations are shown in parentheses. Attitude change was defined as postminus pre-manipulation attitude (relative to speaker’s opinion). Greater values indicate more
change in the direction advocated by the speaker. All response scales range from -3 to +3,
with greater values indicating greater receptiveness, attitude strength, etc.
** p < .01
***p < .001
EYE CONTACT AND PERSUASION
23
Figure Caption
Figure 1. The effect of gaze condition on attitude change in Study 2, mediated by
receptiveness.
** p < .01
***p < .001