Gaze is an important tool for social communication. Gaze can influence trust, likability, and compliance. However, excessive gaze in some contexts can signal threat, dominance and aggression, and hence complex social rules govern the appropriate use of gaze. Using a between-subjects design we investigated the impact of three levels of robot gaze (averted, constant and “situational”) upon participants’ likelihood of trusting a humanoid robot’s opinion in a cooperative visual tracking task. The robot, acting as a confederate, would disagree with participants’ responses on certain trials, and suggest a different answer. As constant, staring gaze between strangers is associated with dominance and threat, and averted gaze is associated with lying, we predicted participants would be most likely to be persuaded by a robot which only gazed during disagreements (“situational gaze”). However, gender effects were found, with females least likely to trust a robot which stared at them, and no significant differences between averted gaze and situational gaze. Implications and future work are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
The “shell game”, also known as the “cup game”, involves hiding a small object underneath one of three identical cups, and then quickly moving the cups to create uncertainty as to the object’s true location.
For more information about the Nao visit https://www.aldebaran.com.
As the robot was programmed to always provide the correct answer on Easy trials, Easy trials are not considered in the analysis. Furthermore, participants gave the correct answer on 93.9% percent of Easy trials, and therefore the robot rarely disagreed with participants on Easy trials.
Tickle-Degnen L, Rosenthal R (1990) The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates. Psychol Inq 1(4):285–293
Olivola CY, Todorov A (2010) Elected in 100 milliseconds: appearance-based trait inferences and voting. J Nonverbal Behav 34(2):83–110
Feingold A (1992) Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychol Bull 111(2):304–341
Farmer H, McKay R, Tsakiris M (2014) Trust in me: trustworthy others are seen as more physically similar to the self. Pschol Sci 25(1):290–292
Harrigan JA, Oxman TE, Rosenthal R (1985) Rapport expressed through nonverbal behavior. J Nonverbal Behav 9(2):95–110
Lafrance M, Broadbent M (1976) Group rapport: posture sharing as a nonverbal indicator. J Group Organ Manag 1(3):328–333
Guéguen N (2013) Handshaking and compliance with a request: a door-to-door setting. Soc Behav Personal 41(10):1585–1588
Kleinke CL (1986) Gaze and eye contact: a research review. Psychol Bull 100(1):78–100
Wheller RH, Baron JC, Michell S, Ginsburg HJ (1979) Eye contact and the perception of intelligence. Bull Psychon Soc 13:101–102
Ekman P, Friesen WV, O’Sullivan M (1988) Smiles when lying. J Personal Soc Psychol 54:414–420
Murphy N (2007) Appearing smart: the impression management of intelligence, person perception accuracy, and behavior in social interaction. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 33(3):325–339
Langton SR, Watt RJ, Bruce V (2000) Do they eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention. Trends Cogn Sci 4(2):50–59
Burgoon JK, Manusov V, Mineo P, Hale JU (1985) Effects of gaze on hiring, credibility, attraction and relational message interpretation. J Nonverbal Behahav 9(3):133–146
Kendon A (1967) Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychol 32(1):1–25
Siegman AW, Feldstein S (2014) Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior. Psychology Press, New York
Kleinke CK, Singer DA (1979) Influence of gaze on compliance with demanding and conciliatory requests in a field setting. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 5(1):386–390
Snyder M, Grether J, Keller K (1974) Staring and compliance: a field experiment on hitchhiking. J Appl Soc Psychol 4(1):165–170
Bull R, Gibson-Robinson E (1981) The influence of eye-gaze, style of dress, and locality on the amounts of money donated to a charity. Human Relat 34(1):895–905
Hemsley GD, Doob AN (1978) The effect of looking behavior on perceptions of a communicator’s credibility. J Appl Soc Psychol 8(2):1559–1816
Sparks A, Barclay P (2013) Eye images increase generosity, but not for long: the limited effect of a false cue. Evol Human Behav 34(1):317–322
Haley KJ, Fessler DMT (2005) Nobodys watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evol Human Behav 26(1):245–256
Fehr E, Schneider F (2010) Eyes are on us, but nobody cares: are eye cues relevant for strong reciprocity? Proc Biol Sci 277(1686):1315–1323
Hancock PA, Billings DR, Schaefer KE, Chen JY, de Visser EJ, Parasuraman R (2011) A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human–robot interaction. Human Factors 53(5):517–527
Otteson JP, Otteson CR (1980) Effects of teacher gaze on childrens story recall. Percept Motor Skills 50(1):35–42
Mutlu B, Forlizzi J, Hodgins J (2006) A storytelling robot: modeling and evaluation of human-like gaze behavior. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on humanoid robots, pp 518–523
Ham J, Bokhorst R, Cuijpers R, van der Pol D, Cabibihan JJ (2011) Making robots persuasive: the influence of combining persuasive strategies (gazing and gestures) by a storytelling robot on its persuasive power. In: Third international conference on social robotics ICSR, vol 7072, no 1, pp 71–83
Chidambaram V, Chiang YH, Mutlu B (2012) Designing persuasive robots: how robots might persuade people using vocal and nonverbal cues. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Intl. Conf. on HRI, pp 293–300
DeSteno D, Breazeal C, Frank RH, Pizarro D, Baumann J, Dickens L, Lee JJ (2012) Detecting the trustworthinness of novel partners in economic exchange. Psychol Sci 23:1549–1556
Stanton C, Stevens CJ (2014) Robot pressure: the impact of robot eye gaze and lifelike bodily movements upon decision-making and trust. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on social robotics ICSR, pp 330–339
Kleinke CL (1980) Interaction between gaze and legitimacy of request on compliance in a field setting. Nonverbal Behav 5(1):3–12
Hinde RA, Rowell TE (1962) Communication by posture and facial expression in the rhesus monkey. Proc Zool Soc Lond 138(1):1–21
Perrett DI, Smith PAJ, Potter DD, Mistlin AJ, Head AS, Milner AD, Jeeves MA (1985) Visual cells in the temporal cortex sensitive to face view and gaze direction. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 223(1232):293–317
Emery NJ, Lorincz EN, Perrett DI, Oram MW, Baker CI (1997) Gaze following and joint attention in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatto). J Comp Psychol 111(3):286–293
Nichols KA, Champness BG (1971) Eye gaze and the GSR. J Exp Soc Psychol 7(1):623–626
Mazur A, Rosa E, Faupel M, Heller J, Leen R, Thurman B (1980) Physiological aspects of communication via mutual gaze. Am J Soc 86(1):50–74
Knapp M, Hall J, Horgan T (2013) Non-verbal communication in human interaction, 8th edn. Boston, Wadsworth
Thayer S (1969) The effects of interpersonal looking duration on dominance judgments. J Soc Psychol 79(1):285–286
DeVito JA (2011) Human communication: the basic course. Pearson, London
Argyle M, Cook M (1976) Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge University Press, New York
Coutts LM, Schneider FW (1976) Affiliative conflict theory: an investigation of the intimacy equilibrium and compensation hypothesis. J Personal Soc Psychol 34(6):1135–1142
Broz F, Lehmann H, Nehaniv CL, Dautenhahn K (2012) Mutual gaze, personality, and familiarity: dual eye-tracking during conversation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE RO-MAN, pp 858–864
Argle M, Lefebvre L, Cook M (1974) The meaning of 5 patterns of gaze. Eur J Soc Psychol 4(2):125–136
Chen FS, Minson JA, Schne M, Heinrichs M (2013) In the eye of the beholder: eye contact increases resistance to persuasion. Psychol Sci 24(11):2254–2261
Taylor R, Hick RF (2007) Believed cues to deception: judgements in self-generated serious and trivial situations. Leg Criminol Psychol 12(1):321–332
Einav S, Hood BM (2008) Tell-tale eyes: childrens attribution of gaze aversion as a lying cue. Dev Psychol 44(6):1655–1667
Mann S, Vrij A, Leal S, Granhag PA, Warmelink L, Forrester D (2012) Windows to the soul? Deliberate eye contact as a cue to deceit. J Nonverbal Behav 36(1):205–215
Mann S, Ewens S, Shaw D, Vrij A, Leal S, Hillman J (2013) Lying eyes: why liars seek deliberate eye contact. Psychiatry Psychol Law 20(3):452–461
Takayama L, Pantofaru C (2009) Influences on proxemic behaviors in human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the intelligent robots and systems IROS, pp 5495–5502
Mumm J, Mutlu B (2011) Human-robot proxemics: physical and psychological distancing in human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conf on human–robot interaction, pp 331–338
Feldman RS (1991) Fundamentals of nonverbal behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bhaskaran N, Nwogum I, Frank MG, Govindaraju V (2011) Lie to me: deceit detection via online behavioral learning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on automatic face and gesture recognition, pp 24–29
Mann S, Vrij A, Bull R (2004) Detecting true lies: police officers’ ability to detect suspects’ lies. J Appl Psychol 89(1):137–49
Kraut R (1980) Humans as lie detectors. J Commun 30(4):209–218
Vrij A (2000) Detecting lies and deceit: the psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice. Wiley, Chichester
About this article
Cite this article
Stanton, C.J., Stevens, C.J. Don’t Stare at Me: The Impact of a Humanoid Robot’s Gaze upon Trust During a Cooperative Human–Robot Visual Task. Int J of Soc Robotics 9, 745–753 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0422-y
- Nonverbal communication
- Human–robot interaction