Functions of eye-contact

It is difficult, if not impossible, to offer a full typology of all the possible functions associated with eye-contact behaviour. For example, Vincze and Poggi (2011) present a typology of eye-closing behaviours based on a semantic taxonomy of communicative signals. They distinguish between communicative and non-com-municative eye-closing, and analyse three different types of eye closings during political debates: blinks, eye-closures and winks. Additionally, they explain that communicative eye-closing can be grouped on the basis of their meaning. Poggi (2007, 2002) explains that any communicative signal (verbal or non-verbal) con-veys information concerning a) the World, b) the Speaker’s Identity and c) the Speaker’s Mind. Vincze and Poggi (2011:400) state that:

Information on the World concerns the concrete and abstract entities and events of the world outside the speaker (objects, persons, organisms, events, their place and time); Information on the Speaker’s Identity concerns his/her age, sex, personali-ty, cultural roots; while Information on the Speaker’s Mind concerns the Speaker’s mental states: his/her goals, beliefs and emotions referred to ongoing discourse.

After a detailed examination of the MP’s eye-contact behaviour in this particular political context (i.e. oral questions), the following functions have been identified:

1. To sound more natural and avoid the formal reading of a question. Glances or eye-contacts of less than one second are the most frequent types used for this function. This function is much more frequent in the first turns, because most MPs confine themselves to reading the speech they have prepared. Thus, the use of short eye-contacts or glances serves to mitigate the formality of reading and make their utterances closer to spoken communication.

2. To regulate communication and turn-taking. Regulators are more commonly used by MPs in the opposition, that is, PP MPs. This could be because they try to avoid eye-contact with the RM. Regulators are also used by the RM when interacting with PSOE MPs. Probably this is because there is no need to per-suade them and so she has no need to use long eye-contact as an additional strategy for persuasion.

3. To signal affiliation and loyalty, mainly by means of long eye-contacts. This visual behaviour is typically used by PSOE MPs because they are the party in government and are keen to show agreement with the RM.

4. To express disagreement. This function (typically long eye-contacts) is found in the RM’s behaviour when interacting with the opposition and the other way round. When using this function, eye-contact serves to make the interaction more confrontational.

5. To reinforce certain elements of the discourse and thus to contribute to the force of argument. Eye-contacts tend to be used at the end of the interaction to bring the argument to a close.

6. To display power relations. This type of function (usually long eye-contacts) is typical of the RM to show her dominance over the MPs. Long eye-contact has also been found to be used with the same function when MPs from the opposition demand some kind of explanation from the RM.

7. To express self-satisfaction. This function has been observed in both the RM’s discourse and the PP MPs’ questions. The RM uses this function when she is proud of her achievements. By contrast, the PP MPs use this function when they are aware that they have defeated the RM in argument.

8. To indicate interest. Studies have shown that our pupils dilate when we are interested in something, and that people with dilated pupils are considered to be more attractive (Marshall, 1983, cited in De Vito, 2002).

9. To save face. This function is evident when the RM interacts with a PP MP. She feels her face at risk when interacting with the opposition but not with PSOE 10. To persuade. This function (generally long eye-contacts) is used to respond to MPs.

difficult and loaded questions from the opposition.

Similarly, the lack of eye-contact is also a source of information. It has been ob-served that politicians avoid visual contact with the following aims:

1. To imply detachment and opposition. This is a common feature of communi-cation between members of different political parties.

2. To show affiliation instead of detachment. This behaviour is typical when the RM answers a question raised by MPs from her own political party, PSOE, whose loyalty can be taken for granted.

Both the presence and absence of eye-contact may serve as communication strate-gies for politicians to get the better of their political adversaries.

8. Conclusions

Regarding turn-types, we can conclude that longer eye-contacts tend to be more frequent in the second turns (the supplementary question). The reason for this is closely related to the turn-type nature: the first turn closer to written speech and the second turn to spoken discourse. Thus, it could be argued that long eye-contact is more characteristic of spoken discourse than that of written discourse.

Thus, regulators (mainly glances) are more frequent in the first turns because most politicians simply read the questions that they have prepared in advance.

Regarding political allegiance, it has been observed that PSOE MPs maintain more eye-contact than PP MPs. Furthermore, PP MPs tend to use more regula-tors, while PSOE MPs display longer eye-contacts. The difference between the two political parties lies not only in eye-contact duration but also in the total amount of visual contact: PSOE MPs maintain more eye-contact than the MPs in the op-position party. Thus, it can be concluded that eye-contact is used as a means to signalling affiliation and loyalty towards the RM. Regarding the RM’s eye-contact behaviour, she not only keeps more eye-contact with MPs in the opposition, but also her eye-contacts themselves are of much longer duration. In contrast, she uses more regulators with PSOE MPs.

Concerning gender differences, men seem to keep more eye-contact than women. This generalisation is only true if political allegiance is not taken into ac-count. When distinguishing between the two parties, the generalisation holds true only for PSOE MPs. Concerning PP MPs, it is women who keep more eye-contact than men. In general, women use more regulators, but the difference between men and women is more evident in the case of PP MPs. These results are very interest-ing but, at the same time, they may lead us to a wrong interpretation. Although female PP MPs and male PSOE MPs seem to have a similar behaviour regarding the amount of eye-contact, it does not mean there are no gender differences. The reason why PSOE men show such a prolonged eye-contact behaviour is to show affiliation with the RM.

As for the RM, her behaviour is practically the same when interacting with male and female PP MPs, but not with PSOE MPs. The results show that the RM maintains more eye-contact with female PSOE MPs. Surprisingly, similar results were found concerning the use of redundancy in oral questions in the Andalusian Parliament (Álvarez-Benito and Íñigo-Mora, 2012). It is worth mentioning that PSOE MPs’ contact behaviour is not reciprocal: male MPs keep more eye-contact with the RM, but the RM keeps more eye-eye-contact with female MPs.

Eye-contact has been shown to have a wide variety of functions: to appear more natural, to invite feedback, to signal affiliation and loyalty, to show disagree-ment, to reinforce words and reinforce the argudisagree-ment, to display power relations, to express self-satisfaction, to indicate interest, to save face and to persuade.

Avoidance of eye-contact has also been shown to perform different functions: to imply detachment and opposition, and to show affiliation. This varied typology is highly context-dependent and dependent on factors such as type of discourse, po-litical allegiance or gender. Although there may be very broad and general consid-erations regarding eye-contact behaviour, every single interaction exhibits specific traits typical of that communicative encounter.

References

Allport, F. H. (1924) Social Psychology. Cambridge: Houghton Mifflin.

Allport, G. W. and P. E. Vernon (1933) Studies in Expressive Movement. New York: MacMillan doi: 10.1037/11566-000

Álvarez-Benito, G. and I. Íñigo-Mora (2012) “Redundancy in Parliamentary Discourse” in A. Fetzer, E. Weizman and E. Reber (eds.) Proceedings of the ESF Strategic Workshop on Follow-ups across discourse domains: a cross-cultural exploration of their forms and func-tions. (urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-71656) http://opus.bibliothek.uniwuerzburg.de/voll-texte/2012/7165

Argyle, M. (1988) Bodily Communication. 2nd edition. New York: Methuen & Co. Ltd.

Argyle, M. and M. Cook (1976) Gaze and Mutual Gaze. Cambridge: CUP.

Argyle, M. and J. Dean (1965) “Eye contact, distance and affiliation” in Sociometry 28: 289–304.

doi: 10.2307/2786027

Bayliss, A. P., A. Frischen, M. J. Fenske and S. P. Tipper (2007) “Affective evaluations of objects are influenced by observed gaze direction and emotional expresión” in Cognition 104(3):

644–653.

Bayliss, A. P., G. di Pellegrino and S. P. Tipper (2004) “Orienting of attention via observed eye-gaze is head-centred” in Cognition 94(1): B1–B10.

Bayliss, A. P. and S. P. Tipper (2005) “Gaze and arrow cueing of attention reveals individual differences along the autism-spectrum as a function of target context” in British Journal of Psychology 96(1): 95–114.

Bente, G., W. C. Donaghy and D. Suwelack (1998) “Sex differences in body movement and visual attention: An integrated analysis of movement and gaze in mixed-sex dyads” in Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 22(1): 31–58. doi: 10.1023/A:1022900525673

Buck, R., R. E. Miller and W. F. Caul (1974) “Sex, Personality, and Physiological Variables in the Communication of Affect Via Facial Expression” in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30: 587–596. doi: 10.1037/h0037041

Buck, R. W., V. J. Savin, R. E Miller and W. F. Caul (1972) “Communication of affect through facial expressions in humans” in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23: 362–371.

doi: 10.1037/h0033171

Burgoon, J. K., D. B Buller and W. G. Woodall (1996) Nonverbal Communication: The Unspoken Dialog. New York: Harper & Row.

Crowne, D. P. and D. Marlowe (1964) The Approval Motive. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

De Vito, J. A. (2002) The interpersonal communication reader. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Dovidio, J. F., S. T Ellyson, C. F Keating, K. Heltman and C. E. Brown (1988) “The relationship of social power to visual displays of dominance between men and women” in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54(2): 233–242. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.233

Dodd, M. D., J. R Hibbing and K. B. Smith (2010) “The politics of attention: gaze-cuing effects are moderated by political temperament” in Attention, Perception & Psychophysics.

doi: 10.3758/s13414-010-0001-x

Duncan, S. (1974) “Some signals and rules for taking speaker turns in conversations” in S. Weitz (ed.) Nonverbal Communication. New York: OUP.

Efran, J. S. (1968) “Looking for approval: Effects on visual behavior of approbation from persons differing in importance” in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 10: 21–25.

doi: 10.1037/h0026383

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1972) “Ritual and ritualization from a biological perspective” in R. A. Hinde (ed.) Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: CUP, 297–312.

Ellyson, S. L., et al. (1980) –201C;Visual dominance behavior in female dyads: Situational and personality factors” in Social Psychology Quarterly 43: 328–336.

Exline, R. V. (1963) “Explorations in the process of person perception: Visual interaction in rela-tion to competirela-tion, sex, and need for affiliarela-tion” in Journal of Personality 31: 1–20.

doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1963.tb01836.x

Exline, R. V. and C. Eldridge (1965) “Affect, cognition and personality”. Unpublished. Reported in S. Tomkins and C. Isaard (eds.). New York: Springer.

Exline, R. V. and C. Eldridge (1967) Effects of two patterns of a speaker’s visual behavior upon the perception of the authenticity of his verbal message. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, Mass.