Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 250–258 | Cite as

Eye-contact as a chance product of individual looking: Implications for the intimacy model of argyle and dean

  • D. R. Rutter
  • D. C. Pennington
  • M. E. Dewey
  • J. Swain
Article

Abstract

From time to time during social encounters, people look at one another in the region of the eyes, and sometimes their eyes meet to make eye-contact. According to Argyle and Dean (1965), eye-contact in dyadic encounters signals the intimacy of the interaction and is controlled largely by the competing approach and avoidance forces that motivate the pair. In the present paper, new analyses are reported of three published experiments that were designed originally to test aspects of the intimacy model and it is shown that the duration of eye-contact is no more than a chance product of how long the two subjects look individually. Looking and not eye-contact, it is argued, should be the basis for models of visual interaction, and the intimacy model is ill-founded conceptually; the role of emotion in gaze has been overstressed at the expense of the concept of information; and the most important aspect of vision is in any case not looking and eye-contact but visual access to the whole person. The more “cueless” the encounter—that is, the fewer the social cues from vision and all the other senses combined—the greater the psychological distance; and the greater the psychological distance, the more task-oriented and depersonalized the content of what people say and, in turn, the less spontaneous their style of speech and the less likely a debate to end in compromise.

Keywords

Social Psychology Social Encounter Psychological Distance Visual Access Visual Interaction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Argyle, M., & Cook, M.Gaze and mutual gaze. London: Cambridge University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  2. Argyle, M., & Dean, J. Eye-contact, distance and affiliation.Sociometry 1965,28 289–304.Google Scholar
  3. Argyle, M., & Ingham, R. Gaze, mutual gaze, and proximity.Semiotica 1972,6 32–49.Google Scholar
  4. Edinger, J. A., & Patterson, M. L. Nonverbal involvement and social control.Psychological Bulletin 1983,93 30–56.Google Scholar
  5. Ellsworth, P. C. The meaningful look. (Review of Argyle & Cook, 1976).Semiotica 1978,24 341–351.Google Scholar
  6. Hargreaves, C. P., & Fuller, M. F. Some analyses of data from eye-contact studies.British Journal of Social Psychology 1984,23 77–82.Google Scholar
  7. Harper, R. G., Wiens, A. N., & Matarazzo, J. D.Nonverbal communication: The state of the art. Chichester: Wiley, 1978.Google Scholar
  8. Kemp, N. J., & Rutter, D. R. Cuelessness and the content and style of conversation.British Journal of Social Psychology 1982,21 43–49.Google Scholar
  9. Patterson, M. L. An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy.Psychological Review 1976,83 235–245.Google Scholar
  10. Patterson, M. L. Arousal change and cognitive labelling: Pursuing the mediators of intimacy exchange.Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behaviour 1978,3 17–22.Google Scholar
  11. Patterson, M. L. A sequential functional model of nonverbal exchange.Psychological Review 1982,89 231–249.Google Scholar
  12. Patterson, M. L., Jordan, A., Hogan, M. B., & Frerker, D. Effects of nonverbal intimacy on arousal, and behavioural adjustment.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 1981,5 184–198.Google Scholar
  13. Pennington, D. C., & Rutter, D. R. Information or affiliation? Effects of intimacy on visual interaction.Semiotica 1981,35 29–39.Google Scholar
  14. Rutter, D. R.Looking and seeing: The role of visual communication in social interaction. Chichester: Wiley, 1984.Google Scholar
  15. Rutter, D. R., Morley, I. E., & Graham, J. C. Visual interaction in a group of introverts and extraverts.European Journal of Social Psychology 1972,2 371–384.Google Scholar
  16. Rutter, D. R., & Stephenson, G. M. The functions of Looking: Effects of friendship on gaze.British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 1979,18 203–205.Google Scholar
  17. Rutter, D. R., Stephenson, G. M., & Dewey, M. E. Visual communication and the content and style of conversation.British Journal of Social Psychology 1981,20 41–52.Google Scholar
  18. Rutter, D. R., Stephenson, G. M., Lazzerini, A. J., Ayling, K., & White, P. A. Eye-contact: A chance product of individual Looking?British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 1977,16 191–192.Google Scholar
  19. Stephenson, G. M., Rutter, D. R., & Dore, S. R. Visual interaction and distance.British Journal of Psychology 1973,64 251–257.Google Scholar
  20. Strongman, K. T., Champness, B. G. Dominance hierarchies and conflict in eye contact.Acta Psychologica 1968,28 376–386.Google Scholar
  21. Swain, J., Stephenson, G. M., & Dewey, M. E. Seeing a stranger: Does eye-contact reflect intimacy?Semiotica 1982,42 107–118.Google Scholar
  22. Wagner, H., Clarke, A. H., & Ellgring, J. H. Eye-contact and individual looking: The role of chance.British Journal of Social Psychology 1983,22 61–62.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. R. Rutter
  • D. C. Pennington
  • M. E. Dewey
  • J. Swain

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations