research paper on nonverbal communication

Nonverbal Communication

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA; email: [email protected].
• 2 Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Flint, Michigan 48502, USA; email: [email protected].
• 3 Department of Psychology, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, California 90045, USA; email: [email protected].
• PMID: 30256720
• DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103145

The field of nonverbal communication (NVC) has a long history involving many cue modalities, including face, voice, body, touch, and interpersonal space; different levels of analysis, including normative, group, and individual differences; and many substantive themes that cross from psychology into other disciplines. In this review, we focus on NVC as it pertains to individuals and social interaction. We concentrate specifically on ( a) the meanings and correlates of cues that are enacted (sent) by encoders and ( b) the perception of nonverbal cues and the accuracy of such perception. Frameworks are presented for conceptualizing and understanding the process of sending and receiving nonverbal cues. Measurement issues are discussed, and theoretical issues and new developments are covered briefly. Although our review is primarily oriented within social and personality psychology, the interdisciplinary nature of NVC is evident in the growing body of research on NVC across many areas of scientific inquiry.

Keywords: decoding; encoding; interpersonal accuracy; nonverbal behavior; nonverbal communication.

Publication types

• Interpersonal Relations*
• Nonverbal Communication* / psychology
• Social Perception*

EDITORIAL article

Editorial: advances and obstacles in contemporary nonverbal communication research.

• 1 Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States
• 2 Department of Communication, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States
• 3 Department of Organizational Behavior, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
• 4 Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

Editorial on the Research Topic Advances and Obstacles in Contemporary Nonverbal Communication Research

For centuries, speculation about the meaning and impact of nonverbal behavior has been common in literature, philosophy, and science (see Knapp, 2006 for a historical review). In the latter half of the nineteenth century, Darwin's 1872 The expression of the emotions in man and animals work was particularly instrumental in focusing attention on expressive behavior. Nevertheless, sustained and systematic empirical research on nonverbal communication was not widespread until the middle of the twentieth century. Examples of its diverse roots can be found in anthropology ( Birdwhistell, 1955 , 1970 ; Hall, 1959 , 1966 ), sociology ( Goffman, 1959 , 1963 ), and psychology ( Sommer, 1959 , 1962 ; Exline, 1963 ; Ekman, 1964 , 1965 ). Since that time, literally tens of thousands of articles and hundreds of scholarly books have expanded our knowledge of the nonverbal communication and prompted new and interesting questions about its scope and functions. This acceleration of publications, especially in recent years, provides an appropriate opportunity to examine the current landscape of nonverbal communication research and to provide an outlook into future areas and topics.

In laying the foundation for our “Advances and Obstacles” issue, it is worth noting some of the important topics addressed in current research. For example, we are learning more about the accuracy of pervasive automatic judgments of others' appearance and behavior ( Todorov, 2017 ; Murphy et al., 2019 ). But automatic judgments can also facilitate prejudice and discrimination, as studies of implicit bias show ( Richeson and Shelton, 2005 ). The long-held view that facial expressions necessarily reflect underlying emotions ( Ekman, 1982 ) is now being challenged. One alternative view proposes that facial behaviors are adaptive and adaptable tools for social influence, rather than universal uniform expressions of basic emotions ( Crivelli and Fridlund, 2018 ). The relative merits of these opposing views also have relevance for understanding nonverbal communication in a variety of settings, including the justice system (e.g., detecting deception), policy decisions, national security, and clinical settings ( Denault et al., 2020 ). Research on cultural differences in nonverbal communication provides insight into cultural dynamics and is relevant for reducing inter-group conflict and facilitating cooperation ( Matsumoto and Hwang, 2016 ). Exciting recent work in behavioral neuroscience examines the neural correlates of nonverbal communication (e.g., Jacob et al., 2014 , Lindenberg et al., 2012 ; Arioli and Canessa, 2019 ).

In the present digital age, rapidly-evolving communication technologies might seem to displace the more mundane role of face-to-face nonverbal communication in everyday life. The continuing expansion of social media, artificial intelligence systems, virtual reality, and social robots, however, is not replacing, but rather extending nonverbal communication to new platforms (see also von der Pütten et al., 2010 ; Hasler and Friedman, 2012 ; Küster et al., 2015 ; Patterson, 2019 ; Blunden and Brodsky, 2021 ). As a result, this is a time of expanding research and theory into new domains. Nevertheless, the opportunities provided by the new technologies must be weighed against the ease of spreading misleading and deceptive images that affect our trust in their content (e.g., Tolosana et al., 2020 ).

Consequently, this is an appropriate time to (1) examine more fully the questions driving current research and theory, (2) weigh the obstacles to a broader understanding of nonverbal communication, and (3) consider the potential opportunities for advancing future research on nonverbal communication. The collection of articles here is testimony to the diversity of nonverbal communication research in addressing these goals.

Many of the 17 articles in this issue focus in some fashion on methodological advances and their potential limitations in new directions for research. Murphy and Hall review the thin-slice method with a particular focus on its reliability and validity in representing sustained behavioral sequences. The article proposes that deciding if and when to employ thin-slice measurement should focus on its broader representativeness for behavior, predictive validity for variables or constructs beyond the sampled behavior, and assessing how the length of the sampled thin-slices affects the accuracy of interpersonal judgments.

Three articles deal with new technologies that include machine learning and the application of algorithms to the scoring and evaluation of nonverbal stimuli. Albohn and Adams applied computer vision algorithms to the structure, color, and texture of faces to predict gender-stereotypic impressions. In addition, the computer impressions were similar to those made by human participants. The broader issue of the opportunities and limitations of machine learning were addressed in two other articles. Burgoon et al. used machine learning and automated analysis to examine the role of dominance-submission, composure-nervousness, and trust-mistrust in relational communication. They also discussed the potential benefits of the new techniques in simplifying the study of nonverbal communication. Renier et al. also recognize the utility of applying algorithms in machine learning techniques in analyzing nonverbal behavior. Nevertheless, they caution that automated nonverbal coding can be as biased as human coding and can be limited to the particular context for the behavior.

Several empirical articles focus on a variety of issues related to the encoding and decoding of expressive displays. Bente et al. developed a motion capture and character animation method eliminating cultural and gender appearance cues that can precipitate stereotypic biased judgments. In the absence of visual culture and gender cues, they found that female dyads were rated significantly higher on rapport and that this difference was greater in Arab dyads than in German dyads. Song et al. examined anger and sadness expressions in South Korean and American samples. They found that in both cultures, anger and sadness displays signaled both negative and positive underlying states. Fugate and Franco studied the correspondence between human facial expressions and analogous emoji faces. They found that the majority of emoji faces did not conform to human emotional expressions, even though the anatomical codes for the two types of faces were generally shared. Etcoff et al. investigated the effects of botulinum toxin treatments on the perceptions of pre- and post-treatment smiles. Pre-treatment smiles were rated as more felt, more spontaneous, and happier than post-treatment smiles. Although post-treatment patients were rated as looking younger, they were not judged as more attractive than pre-treatment patients. The effects of tears on visual attention to faces and on subsequent judgments of emotional intensity were the focus of an experimental study by Pico et al. An eye tracking method provided evidence for tears being a magnet for visual attention that, in turn, facilitated perceptions of greater emotional intensity. Ruben et al. addressed the issue of whether technology use enhanced or hindered nonverbal decoding skill. Overall screen time was unrelated to objective measures of decoding skill, but how participants used their screen time was related to decoding skill. Active users (e.g., posting content) performed worse on decoding skill measures, but passive users performed better.

Various issues dealing with authenticity/deception in expressive behavior are the focus of three other articles. Zloteanu and Krumhuber discuss different perspectives on facial displays in the context of increasing evidence contradicting the traditional view that reliable facial muscle movements signal distinct emotional experiences. They discuss spontaneous vs. posed expressions and advocate a functional approach to expressions as neurophysiological states and communicative signals. Vrij and Fisher's article addresses the common assumption that liars display more nervous behaviors than truth tellers. They provide evidence that liars do not show more nervous behaviors. Consequently, observers who focus on such nervous behaviors are likely to do poorly in detecting deception. On a similar theme, Denault discusses the negative consequences of depending on unreliable nonverbal cues for detecting deception. Specifically, in the justice system, judges, and juries are vulnerable to the common, but scientifically discredited, assumption of valid nonverbal indicators of deception. As a result, assessments of witness credibility can be distorted, with detrimental effects on trial outcomes.

The last four articles provide a range of commentaries on approaches to future research. Matsumoto and Hwang advocated for a multimodal approach to research and theory. That is, increased attention to clusters of nonverbal behavior, rather than a single channel at a time, can facilitate our understanding of underlying mental states. Carrard addresses a similar theme of linking interactants' inner preferences and expectations to patterns of nonverbal behavior. That is, nonverbal communication should be viewed as an adaptive process driven by actors' inner characteristics. DeGroot et al. focus on the emerging and important research on the diverse effects of olfaction on a wide variety of interpersonal processes, including identity, emotion, and mate selection. The authors argue that pursuing effectively the wide range of important issues in olfaction requires an integration of the psychology and chemistry disciplines into a new field of “sociochemistry.” Finally, Kirkwood et al. extend the process of interpersonal synchrony from the nonverbal mimicry between partners to individuals' synchrony with wearable exoskeletons. Recent technological advances in wearable robots are designed to augment a user's strength and mobility. The authors discuss the utility of the Interpersonal Adaptation Theory in facilitating research maximizing human-exoskeleton synchrony.

In conclusion, we hope that this interesting set of articles provides an informative window into some of the diverse issues driving current research on nonverbal communication. The advances in research discussed in many of these articles are often responses to existing obstacles or discrepancies in research. Other articles are focused more on identifying the new obstacles yet to receive attention that, in turn, will stimulate new research. Thus, the present issue provides a vehicle for facilitating our understanding of nonverbal communication and appreciating where future research may be headed.

Author Contributions

All of the authors have contributed to this work and approved its publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the efforts of all of the contributors to this special issue and for the very helpful comments and insights of the manuscript reviewers.

Arioli, M., and Canessa, N. (2019). Neural processing of social interaction: coordinate-based meta-analytic evidence from human neuroimaging studies. Hum. Brain Mapp . 40, 5354–5369. doi: 10.1002/hbm.24627

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Birdwhistell, R. L. (1955). Background to kinesics. ETC Rev. General Semant. 13, 10–15.

Google Scholar

Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and Context: Essays on Body Motion Communication . Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. doi: 10.9783/9780812201284

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Blunden, H., and Brodsky, A. (2021). Beyond the emoticon: are there unintentional cues of emotion in email? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 47, 565–579. doi: 10.1177/0146167220936054

Crivelli, C., and Fridlund, A. J. (2018). Facial displays are tools for social influence. Trends iCognitive Sci. 22, 388–399. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2018.02.006

Darwin, C. (1872). The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals . London: Murray. doi: 10.1037/10001-000

Denault, V., Plusquellec, P., Jupe, L. M., St-Yves, M., Dunbar, N. E., Hartwig, M., et al. (2020). The analysis of nonverbal communication: the dangers of pseudoscience in security and justice contexts. Anuario de Psicol. Jurídica 30, 1–12. doi: 10.5093/apj2019a9

Ekman, P. (1964). Body positions, facial expression and verbal behavior during interviews. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 68, 295–301. doi: 10.1037/h0040225

Ekman, P. (1965). Differential communication of affect by head and body cues. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2, 726–735. doi: 10.1037/h0022736

Ekman, P. (1982). Emotion in the Human Face (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Exline, R. V. (1963). Explorations in the process of person perception: visual interaction in relation to competition, sex, and need for affiliation. J. Pers. 31, 1–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1963.tb01836.x

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life . Garden City, NY: Anchor.

Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in Public Places . New York, NY: Free Press.

Hall, E. T. (1959). The Silent Language . New York, NY: Doubleday.

Hall, E. T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension . New York, NY: Doubleday.

Hasler, B. S., and Friedman, D. A. (2012). Sociocultural conventions in avatar-mediated nonverbal communication: a cross-cultural analysis of virtual proxemics. J. Intercultural Commun. Res. 41, 238–259. doi: 10.1080/17475759.2012.728764

Jacob, H., Brück, C., Domin, M., Lotze, M., and Wildgruber, D. (2014). I can't keep your face and voice out of my head: neural correlates of an attentional bias toward nonverbal emotional cues. Cerebral Cortex 24, 1460–1473. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhs417

Knapp, M. L. (2006). An historical overview of nonverbal research, in The Sage Handbook of Nonverbal Communication , eds Manusov, V., and Patterson, M. L., (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications), 3–19.

Küster, D., Krumhuber, E., and Kappas, A. (2015). Nonverbal behavior online: a focus on interactions with and via artificial agents and avatars, in The Social Psychology of Nonverbal Communication , eds Kostíc, A., and Chadee, D., (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 272–302. doi: 10.1057/9781137345868_13

Lindenberg, R., Uhlig, M., Scherfeld, D., Schlaug, G., and Seitz, R. J. (2012). Communication with emblematic gestures: shared and distinct neural correlates of expression and reception. Human Brain Mapp. 33, 812–823. doi: 10.1002/hbm.21258

Matsumoto, D., and Hwang, H. C. (2016). The cultural bases of nonverbal communication, in APA Handbook of Nonverbal Communication , eds Matsumoto, D., Hwang, H. C., and Frank, M. G., (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), 77–101. doi: 10.1037/14669-004

Murphy, N. A., Hall, J. A., Ruben, M. A., Frauendorfer, D., Schmid Mast, M., Johnson, K. E., et al. (2019). Predictive validity of thin-slice behavior nonverbal behavior from social interactions. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 45, 983–993. doi: 10.1177/0146167218802834

Patterson, M. L. (2019). A systems model of dyadic nonverbal communication. J. Nonverbal Behav. 43, 111–132. doi: 10.1007/s10919-018-00292-w

Richeson, J. A., and Shelton, J. N. (2005). Brief report: thin slices of racial bias. J. Nonverbal Behav. 29, 75–86. doi: 10.1007/s10919-004-0890-2

Sommer, R. (1959). Studies in personal space. Sociometry 22, 247–260. doi: 10.2307/2785668

Sommer, R. (1962). The distance for comfortable conversation: a further study. Sociometry 25, 111–116. doi: 10.2307/2786041

Todorov, A. (2017). Face Value: The Irresistible Influence of First Impressions . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. doi: 10.1515/9781400885725

Tolosana, R., Vera-Rodriguez, R., Fierrez, J., Morales, A., and Ortega-Garcia, J. (2020). Deepfakes and beyond: a survey of face manipulation and fake detection. Informat. Fusion 64, 131–148. doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2020.06.014

von der Pütten, A. M., Krämer, N. C., Gratch, J., and Kang, S.-H. (2010). It doesn't matter what you are!” Explaining social effects of agents and avatars. Comput. Human Behav. 26, 1641–1650. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.012

Keywords: nonverbal communication, facial expression, culture, technology, deception

Citation: Patterson ML, Dunbar NE, Mast MS and Fernandez-Dols JM (2021) Editorial: Advances and Obstacles in Contemporary Nonverbal Communication Research. Front. Psychol. 12:731334. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.731334

Received: 26 June 2021; Accepted: 13 July 2021; Published: 12 August 2021.

Edited and reviewed by: M. Teresa Anguera , University of Barcelona, Spain

Copyright © 2021 Patterson, Dunbar, Mast and Fernandez-Dols. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Miles L. Patterson, miles_patterson@umsl.edu

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

The Measurement of Eye Contact in Human Interactions: A Scoping Review

• Review Paper
• Open access
• Published: 20 April 2020
• Volume 44 , pages 363–389, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Chiara Jongerius 1 ,
• Roy S. Hessels 2 , 3 ,
• Johannes A. Romijn 4 ,
• Ellen M. A. Smets 1 &
• Marij A. Hillen 1  

43k Accesses

36 Citations

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Eye contact is a fundamental aspect of nonverbal communication and therefore important for understanding human interaction. Eye contact has been the subject of research in many disciplines, including communication sciences, social psychology, and psychiatry, and a variety of techniques have been used to measure it. The choice of measurement method has consequences for research outcomes and their interpretation. To ensure that research findings align with study aims and populations, it is essential that methodological choices are well substantiated. Therefore, to enhance the effective examination of eye contact, we performed a literature review of the methods used to study eye contact. We searched Medline, PsycINFO and Web of Science for empirical peer-reviewed articles published in English that described quantitative studies on human eye contact and included a methodological description. The identified studies ( N  = 109) used two approaches to assess eye contact: direct, i.e., assessing eye contact while it is occurring, and indirect, i.e., assessing eye contact retrospectively (e.g., from video recordings). Within these categories, eight specific techniques were distinguished. Variation was found regarding the reciprocity of eye contact between two individuals, the involvement of an assessor and the behavior of participants while being studied. Measures not involving the interactors in assessment of eye contact and have a higher spatial and temporal resolution, such as eye tracking, have gained popularity. Our results show wide methodological diversity regarding the measurement of eye contact. Although studies often define eye contact as gaze towards an exact location, this may not do justice to the subjective character of eye contact. The various methodologies have hardly ever been compared, limiting the ability to compare findings between studies. Future studies should take notice of the controversy surrounding eye contact measures.

Similar content being viewed by others

Using dual eye tracking to uncover personal gaze patterns during social interaction

A Scoping Review of Eye Tracking Technology for Communication: Current Progress and Next Steps

Deliberate and Self-Conscious Adaptation of Eye-Contact by Autistic Adults

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Eye contact is a fundamental aspect of nonverbal communication and social interaction from birth throughout adulthood (Kleinke 1986 ). Eye contact is an important indicator for healthy bonding between mother and child at early ages and for the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders later in life (Auyeung et al. 2015 ; Farroni et al. 2002 ). Furthermore, it is a fundamental factor in interpersonal relationship building (MacDonald 2009 ). Not surprisingly, eye contact has been the focus of research in various disciplines, such as communication sciences, social psychology, and psychiatry, and various approaches have been used to asses it.

Health communication research has, for example, focused on eye contact between patient and physician and on turn-taking in conversations. The focus of such research has been on the impact of eye contact on patients’ levels of trust, anxiety, and satisfaction (Farber et al. 2015 ; Hillen et al. 2015 ; Pieterse et al. 2007 ). Within this line of research, researchers have used video cameras to observe the gaze behavior of patients and physicians (Farber et al. 2015 ; Pieterse et al. 2007 ). Clinical consultations were filmed and, subsequently, physicians’ and patients’ gaze behaviors were coded by researchers using software for behavioral coding (Farber et al. 2015 ; Pieterse et al. 2007 ). As regards turn-taking, studies have observed people involved in a conversation and have, for example, related their amount of gaze to their proportion of speaking time to gain insight into the ‘smoothness’ of encounters (Kalma 1992 ; Kendon and Cook 1969 ). These studies have identified patterns of gaze in interactions indicating that someone is speaking, listening or inviting another interactor to take over.

In the field of social psychology, eye contact has, for example, been studied as a way for different individuals or groups to approach or deceive each other (Kleinke 1986 ). To understand how eye contact enables approaching behavior, eye contact is usually experimentally enhanced or obstructed during social encounters. Afterwards, effects are assessed on outcomes such as distance and affiliation (Argyle and Dean 1965 ; Knight et al. 1973 ). Studies focusing on deception and manipulation have compared the amount of eye contact between participants instructed to lie with a control group of truth-tellers (Jundi et al. 2013 ; Mann et al. 2013 ).

Research on eye contact within psychiatry often focuses on disturbed eye contact patterns as a potential indicator of psychiatric pathologies (Guillon et al. 2014 ; Papagiannopoulou et al. 2014 ; Schulze et al. 2013 ). Such studies have, for instance, found that individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder tend to gaze less at the eye area compared to healthy individuals (Guillon et al. 2014 ; Papagiannopoulou et al. 2014 ; van der Geest et al. 2002 ). These studies generally use the amount of eye-directed gaze as a proxy for eye contact. For example, in a recent study, individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder were instructed to look at the eye-region of faces in pictures. This allowed the researchers to examine the neurological effects of their gaze behavior in the subcortical system using fMRI (Hadjikhani et al. 2017 ). As illustrated, eye contact is central to research in various disciplines focused on understanding human interaction, using a variety of measurement strategies. As eye contact is such a crucial indicator of interpersonal relationships, clarity is needed about how it is defined. Moreover, valid and reliable methods should be chosen to assess it, appropriate for the specific research aim and population. If we want to aggregate and advance research on interpersonal eye contact, we need a clear overview of the different methodologies and their interpretations.

Several previous reviews have grouped the literature on eye contact. For example, the importance of eye contact in patient-physician communication was reviewed by MacDonald ( 2009 ). Furthermore, Senju and Johnson ( 2009a ) reviewed the effect of (perceived) eye contact on cognitive processing. More recently, Grossmann ( 2017 ) reviewed eye contact from an ontogenetic, phylogenetic, neurological, and neuro-hormonal perspective. These reviews have proposed multiple interpretations and models for understanding eye contact. However, they did not take into account the methodological variations in empirical studies on eye contact. A methodological review may provide insight into the implicit assumptions made by researchers about what eye contact is.

Although many researchers state they aim to investigate “eye contact”, variation in the methodologies to measure it complicates aggregation or comparison of study findings. Therefore, our aim was to provide an overview of the methods used to study eye contact across research disciplines. More specifically, we investigated how eye contact is defined and assessed in the empirical literature to uncover the specific techniques that have been used in eye contact research. To that end, we analyzed for individual studies general characteristics (study design, cohort, and field of study), operationalization of eye contact, and participant behavior under investigation. More generally, we analyzed the evolvement of eye contact measures over time, and the covariances between the operationalizations, age group of participants, field of study, and research question.

Search Strategy

We conducted a bibliographic search in Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science, using the following terms: (eye contact) OR ((direct OR mutual OR dyadic OR eye) AND (gaze OR gazing)). For the exact search strings per database see “Appendix 1 ”. The search terms were refined beforehand based on the scope of our research question, literature, an initial exploratory search, and consultation with expert librarians. The search was limited to journal articles written in the English language. The last search date was February 8, 2018. The review was registered in the PROSPERO database, registration number: CRD42018094107. One study not identified in the initial search was added based on expert opinion of one of the reviewers.

Article Selection

Once the search was completed, two authors (CJ, MH) independently screened and discussed 100 articles based on their title and abstract to refine the inclusion criteria. Using these criteria, the same two authors independently screened 500 titles and abstracts to assess congruence and to refine exclusion and inclusion criteria. All further articles were screened by one author (CJ). We included only empirical journal articles. Since our main focus was on the measurement of eye contact in human–human interaction, we used the following inclusion criteria:

Authors described “eye contact” or mutual gaze behavior to be a part of the primary aim or research question of the study.

The study was focused on interaction between two real humans (i.e., no studies involving interaction between humans and animals or pictures).

Human eye contact was assessed using quantitative measures.

Methods to assess eye contact were specifically described in either the introduction, method, or results section.

We included studies on related concepts such as ‘interpersonal looking’ or ‘visual regard’ only if the authors additionally explicitly mentioned to focus on our focus of interest, i.e., ‘eye contact’. Therefore, if authors were clearly focusing on ‘eye contact’, but did not mention these exact words but related terminology such as ‘mutual gaze behavior between humans’ a study was included.

After the initial screening of titles and abstracts, final eligibility of the articles was determined based on the full-text. Two authors screened the full texts independently (CJ, RH). Any discordances were resolved through discussion. For all included articles, data were subsequently extracted according to a predefined extraction form. The extracted data included study aim, study design, field of study, participant age group and health status, and study methodology—i.e., the definition and the operationalization of eye contact, and measures and techniques. See “Appendix 2 ” for the complete extraction form.

Study Selection

The results of the search are summarized in Fig.  1 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The search yielded a total of 5583 unique articles. After initial screening, 224 articles were assessed based on the full-text and 109 studies met the inclusion criteria.

PRISMA flowchart of included articles

Characteristics of the Included Studies

Study characteristics ( N  = 109) are summarized in Table 1 . The studies were published between 1965 and 2017. Studies were performed mostly in the United States ( n  = 60) and European countries ( n  = 33). There were 80 experimental studies, one of which was a randomized controlled trial, and 29 were observational studies, of which 8 had a longitudinal design.

Studies included participants from various age groups: infants, children, adolescents, adults, and elderly; one study included a mixed cohort. Studies focused mostly on healthy participants. Other groups were patients with mental disorders, such as individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, or patients from specific patient populations, such as primary care patients.

The included studies focused on six sub-themes. The majority of studies assessed conversation dynamics , investigating the role of eye contact during conversations. Developmental studies focused on the role of eye contact during healthy infant and child development. Adult psychiatry studies assessed the role of eye contact in adult psychiatric disorders. Proximity studies examined its role in approaching or distancing behaviors. Studies in developmental psychopathology focused on the relationship between eye contact and the development of psychiatric disorders in infants and children. Lastly, group dynamics studies investigated the role of eye contact within groups.

Operationalization of Eye Contact in the Included Studies

Two main approaches to assess eye contact were found: direct (eye contact is assessed while it occurs and is not retrospectively verifiable) and indirect (eye contact is registered and assessed after it has occurred and is therefore verifiable retrospectively). Within these two categories, eight specific techniques to assess eye contact could be distinguished. A description of each category and technique, with examples illustrating the variety of methodologies, is provided in Table 2 .

There was wide variation across studies in how eye contact was defined, specifically regarding the reciprocity of eye contact. In studies using reciprocal measures ( n  = 45 out of 109), eye contact was defined as situations in which one individual gazes at the other and vice versa simultaneously (i.e., two-way). In studies using non-reciprocal measures ( n  = 43 out of 109), eye contact was defined as situations in which one individual gazes at the other, irrespective of the other’s gaze behavior (i.e., one-way). The remaining 21 studies did not specify the reciprocity of their measures.

Definitions additionally differed in the specific location to which gaze should be directed to be defined as eye contact. Twenty-nine studies specified that only gaze directed towards the eye-region was considered as eye contact. Twenty-six specified eye contact as gaze directed towards the face region. Nineteen defined eye contact more broadly as gaze directed towards another person. Two studies specified that gaze needed to be directed towards a general area, e.g., towards the interacting partner. Almost one third of the studies ( n  = 33) did not specify any region.

Participant Behavior in the Included Studies

Across included studies, eye contact was measured in relation to various behaviors and/or tasks, i.e.:

Natural behavior the participants carried out their regular activities as they would have done, had they not been involved in the research, usually in a familiar setting (e.g., at home). Their behaviors were observed and their amount of eye contact while doing so was measured. Examples of natural behavior in the included studies are mothers breastfeeding their children (Arco et al. 1979 ); patients visiting their physicians for a medical consultation (Asan et al. 2013 ); waiting room behavior (Cary 1978 ); and musicians performing at a concert (Biasutti et al. 2016 ).

Interview participants responded to a set of questions asked by an interviewer, researcher, or confederate. An example is a study in which frequency of eye gaze while being interviewed was compared between anorexic young women and a control group (Cipolli et al. 1989 ).

Assigned task participants were assigned a specific task, usually in an experimental setting. The most prevalent task was conducting a conversation on a topic specified by the researcher, e.g., self-disclosure (Amerikaner 1980 ). Examples of other tasks are: a bowling game (Iizuka 1994 ); a role play (Breed and Porter 1972 ); looking at one another (Hessels et al. 2017 ); and participating in a training (Hurley and Marsh 1986 ).

Other studies measured eye contact during behaviors that fit into several of the categories. Examples are studies where participants had to participate in an interview while performing a specific task, e.g., providing false answers (Jundi et al. 2013 ; Mann et al. 2013 ).

Remarkably, participants were rarely made aware of the fact that their gaze behavior was being observed; the majority of the studies included covertly measured eye contact.

Operationalization of Eye Contact over Time

Figure  2 documents changes in the use of methodologies over time. The most frequently used method from 1965 to 1978 was the event recorder. The use of video camera(s) became more frequent between 1978 and 1991, and was still the most common method between 2004 and 2017. Recently, new techniques using camera on glasses and eye tracking have emerged. Between 2004 and 2017 coding sheets were used more frequently to assess eye contact compared to earlier time periods.

Use of various techniques over different time periods

Over time, technical advances have resulted in eye contact measures that have become increasingly precise and accurate. Higher resolution has enabled more temporal and spatial precision. For instance, when estimating the total duration of eye contact based on observer judgment, one may estimate in minutes or perhaps seconds. Eye-tracking techniques enable estimates of eye contact duration in milliseconds (Hessels et al. 2017 ; Hurley and Marsh 1986 ). The same accounts for spatial resolution. A coding sheet may capture whether someone gazes towards the general face region, whereas eye tracking enables researchers to distinguish between gaze towards the right vs. the left eye (Hessels et al. 2017 ; Phillips et al. 1992 ).

Studies also differed regarding the involvement of the assessor in the actual eye contact. In 15 studies, the assessor was directly involved in establishing eye contact. For example, in multiple studies, the assessor served as interviewer and pressed a button on an event recorder whenever the interviewee looked them in the eyes. In the remaining 94 studies, assessors were not involved in the eye contact. For example, in multiple studies, independent assessors retrospectively scored the occurrence of eye contact based on video recordings of an interaction.

Figure  3 shows that the involvement of assessors in assessing eye contact has decreased over the years.

Decrease of assessor involvement in eye contact registration

Covariance Between Operationalization and Study Characteristics

A frequency analysis of co-occurrences between participant age groups (adolescents; adults; children; elderly; infant; mixed) and operationalizations (study design; technique; moment of assessment; reciprocity; gaze location; involvement of the assessor) was performed (see “Appendix 3 ”). Few distinct patterns of co-occurrence were found, except for one: most observational studies were done with infants and children (18 out of 30) and most experimental studies were done with adults (56 out of 78). Next, a frequency analysis on co-occurrence of study field (approach-proximity; conversation; development; developmental psychiatry; group dynamics; psychiatry) with operationalizations was performed. Results again yielded few patterns, except that almost half of the observational studies (14 out of 30) were focused on (child) development whereas most experimental studies (39 out of 78) were focused on conversations.

It was not possible to quantitatively examine co-occurrence of research questions with methodology of the included studies, because of their high diversity.

To create an overview of the various ways in which eye contact has been measured across disciplines we explored the assessment of eye contact in empirical studies. We identified 109 studies measuring eye-contact starting from 1965. We distinguished two categories of assessment, i.e., direct and indirect, and eight specific assessment techniques used within six different research disciplines. The identified techniques varied in spatial and temporal specificity, and in their reliance on human judgment.

Our results demonstrate a wide variety of methods to assess eye contact. Specifically, the eight identified techniques produce different outcomes. Estimation by a participant or observer yields a single indicator of eye contact occurrence. A coding sheet gives an assessor’s estimation of the level of eye contact on a predefined scale. A timer provides a (cumulative) amount of duration, and an event recorder both frequency and duration of the level of eye contact. Video camera(s) yield any of the aforementioned outcomes and can additionally be used for retrospective assessment. A camera on glasses can additionally provide a mobile perspective. Head-mounted and desk-mounted eye-tracking techniques assess (mobile) time and frequency of fixations within a certain area of interest. These different techniques have evolved over time, increasing in temporal and spatial resolution. Eye-tracking yields more precise measurements than estimation or coding sheet techniques. Eye-tracking techniques also enable researchers to operationalize eye contact with more refined criteria, thereby facilitating replication studies.

Yet, the more novel techniques may not necessarily be the preferred techniques—they are often more expensive, require a different set of skills and have so far been time-intensive, limiting sample sizes (Franchak et al. 2017 ; Honma 2013 ). Yet, due to fast technological advances, eye tracking analysis is now becoming less time intensive, enabling larger sample sizes. Additionally, not every research question requires the precision that eye-tracking enables. In Table 3 , we provide an overview of the possibilities offered by the various techniques, to provide some guidance in choosing the right technology for different types of research questions. Our recommendations are not definite. Researchers should choose what best suits their research question, population, and task. In their decisions, they can take into account factors such as obtrusiveness, interest in subjective experience or gaze location, and the required temporal and spatial resolution. For example, if the aim is to understand the gaze behavior of individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum and/or social anxiety disorders, researchers might want to take into account both frequency and duration of gaze towards the eye region, as these people may differ from healthy controls in dwell times and frequency of looking at the eyes (Auyeung et al. 2015 ; Hessels et al. 2018a ). In people with social anxiety disorder, one might additionally want to assess their estimation of the level of eye contact in comparison to healthy controls, since their interpretation of eye contact might differ (Honma 2013 ). If the aim is to understand gaze behavior of healthy neonates, observation with video cameras or coding sheets may be appropriate, as these are the least intrusive (Harel et al. 2011 ).

Our results show that the use of measures in which the assessor of the eye contact is involved as an interactor in the eye contact, which therefore cannot be verified afterwards, has decreased over time. Although their relative subjectivity may make these measures less reliable, they do justice to the definition of eye contact as a subjective perception of perceiving another person’s gaze (Gamer and Hecht 2007 ).

People’s experience of eye contact can be influenced by many factors, such as the presence of a third person, the distance from the other persons’ face, or the perceiver’s visual acuity (Gamer and Hecht 2007 ). We found that researchers often operationalize eye contact as being tied to a specific gaze location. Yet, this may not do justice to the personal experience of eye contact. It is known that humans are not always capable of judging when they are being looked at in the eyes. Particularly downward directions (i.e., towards the mouth) often still elicit the experience of eye contact (see Gamer and Hecht 2007 ). However, in specific cases, it could be relevant to focus on specific gaze locations such as the eye region, for example, when using the amount of eye contact as a diagnostic criterion for pathologies such as autism spectrum disorder. Whereas humans are usually unable to assess whether gaze is directed towards specific facial regions, novel measurement techniques like eye tracking are capable of doing so (Auyeung et al. 2015 ; Gamer and Hecht 2007 ).

If possible, future studies should combine measures that rely on personal experience of eye contact with techniques without the assessor’s involvement in the eye contact registration, to determine (dis)congruence between their results. Such studies could, for example, investigate to what extent gaze location reflects people’s subjective experience of eye contact.

When investigating eye contact, researchers should choose their methods based on what best fits their research aim and population. For example, the subjective experiences of neonates are obviously impossible to assess, whereas in psychiatric populations it may be very insightful to measure people’s personal experience of eye contact. This aligns with our finding that studies involving infants and children were almost always observational, whereas the experimental studies more often included adult populations.

Our results demonstrate that studies assessing eye contact are heterogeneous, not only in measurement methods, but also regarding study populations and the behaviors that were studied. Such behaviors ranged from naturally occurring conduct, through being interviewed, to assigned tasks such as conversation, games, or trainings. The most coherent group of behavioral tasks studied was identified in developmental psychology and involved observational, naturally occurring behavior of infants. Overall, however, the wide heterogeneity in tasks, outcomes and operationalizations prevents researchers from comparing findings regarding eye contact across studies.

To our knowledge, only two studies have compared eye-contact measures, examining the differences between observer and participant rating (Edmunds et al. 2017 ; Shaw et al. 1971 ). One of these found weaker correlations between observer and participant eye contact ratings, than between multiple observer ratings (Shaw et al. 1971 ). The other study found that using a standing video camera was less reliable than using camera on glasses (Edmunds et al. 2017 ). Other studies evaluated the reliability and validity of measuring eye contact using either observer ratings (Knight et al. 1973 ) or video coding (Beattie and Bogle 1982 ). All of those concluded that there were methodological issues with the studied techniques. For example, when using observer ratings, the distance between observer and participants was found to affect the rating reliability (Knight et al. 1973 ). When using video cameras, using two cameras (each focused on one of the interactors’ faces), combined in a split-screen was found to be more reliable than using one camera only or two cameras with greater distance (Beattie and Bogle 1982 ). More studies comparing multiple measures to assess eye contact are needed to provide researchers with guidance in choosing optimal measures for their particular study aim. Furthermore, such comparative research would provide insight into the interpretability of eye contact measures, facilitating the interpretation of both previous and future studies. In addition to choosing between measurement techniques, researchers also need to decide on their specific outcome operationalization. For example, when using eye-tracking, both frequency and duration of eye contact have been used. How precisely to interpret the associated outcomes is not clear yet. For example, a person who makes very frequent, brief eye contact may either be perceived as attentive or as restless. How frequency and duration relate to each other, remains to be determined in methodological research.

A surprising finding is that only a few studies include a detailed description of their methods for assessing eye contact. We excluded studies that did not explicitly describe their measures. Still, 31% of the included studies lacked a specific description of the target gaze region of the supposed eye contact. Moreover, in 19% of the studies, it was unclear whether eye contact was operationalized as reciprocal or not. As a consequence, we cannot assess the comparability of studies aiming to measure eye contact. The use of different measures could signify that different studies are investigating different things. For instance, a study measuring unidirectional eye contact using a scale might yield completely different results than a study measuring reciprocal eye contact with desk-mounted eye tracking.

The issue of comparability may, in reality, be even more profound than identified in our review. We included only research focused on ‘eye contact’, not on related phenomena, and excluded any research on eye contact that did not involve (at least) two human beings. In the research we excluded, even more ways to measure eye contact may have been employed. An example is research instructing individuals to make eye contact with an experimenter in an experimental condition, after which researchers make inferences about whether eye contact has taken place, albeit without formal measurement: (Ponkanen and Hietanen 2012 ). Other studies outside of the current review’s scope have, for example, instructed participants to look at pictures of faces, using their gaze behavior as a model system for studying human social interaction (Senju and Johnson 2009b ). This even greater heterogeneity in measurement could lead to incoherent research findings and conclusions. Future studies should precisely define and operationalize eye contact to enhance interpretation and comparability across studies.

Our conclusions should be interpreted in light of some limitations. First, we did not assess the quality of the included studies, given that our primary focus was to analyze the methodology used to assess eye contact. It is thus possible that the quality of the included studies varies, especially taking into account they date back as far as 1965. However, we believe that giving a broad and historical perspective on the methodologies used to study eye contact justifies our choice. Second, we selected peer-reviewed articles in English only and therefore excluded published articles in other languages.

In this review, we have highlighted the methodological diversity of measures to asses eye contact between two human beings. Of particular importance for future work is how various operationalizations of eye contact—such as the personal experience of eye contact or the more precise measures assessing gaze location—can be used to better understand the phenomenon of eye contact and its consequences for human interaction. To do this, research is needed that captures both the first-person experience of eye contact and the more objective outsiders’ perspective. Researchers need to make their choices for specific definitions and operationalizations of eye contact well-founded, based on evidence or theory. Future studies would benefit from specific descriptions of which techniques were used, the direction of gaze (reciprocal or not), the area of interest of the gaze direction (eyes, face, body or person), and the participant behavior. Moreover, a more meticulous investigation of the comparability of measures is needed before conclusions can be drawn and theories formed about the workings of eye contact.

Abele, A. (1986). Functions of gaze in social interaction: Communication and monitoring. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 10 (2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01000006 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Aiello, J. R. (1977). A further look at equilibrium theory: Visual interaction as a function of interpersonal distance. Environmental Psychology & Nonverbal Behavior, 1 (2), 122–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01145461 .

Allen, D. E., & Guy, R. F. (1977). Ocular breaks and verbal output. Sociometry, 40 (1), 90–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033550 .

Amerikaner, M. (1980). Self-disclosure: A study of verbal and coverbal intimacy. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 104 (2), 221–231.

Arco, C. M., Self, P. A., & Gutrecht, N. (1979). The effect of increased maternal visual regard on neonatal visual behavior. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 8 (2), 117–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374417909532899 .

Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28 , 289–304.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Arnold, A., Semple, R. J., Beale, I., & Fletcher-Flinn, C. M. (2000). Eye contact in children's social interactions: What is normal behavior? Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 25 (3), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/13269780050144271 .

Asan, O., Xu, J., & Montague, E. (2013). Dynamic comparison of physicians' interaction style with electronic health records in primary care settings. Journal of General Practice, 2 , 10.

Google Scholar  

Asan, O., Young, H. N., Chewning, B., & Montague, E. (2015). How physician electronic health record screen sharing affects patient and doctor non-verbal communication in primary care. Patient Education and Counseling, 98 (3), 310–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2014.11.024 .

Ashear, V., & Snortum, J. R. (1971). Eye contact in children as a function of age, sex, social and intellective variables. Developmental Psychology, 4 (3), 479. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030974 .

Auyeung, B., Lombardo, M. V., Heinrichs, M., Chakrabarti, B., Sule, A., Deakin, J. B., et al. (2015). Oxytocin increases eye contact during a real-time, naturalistic social interaction in males with and without autism. Translational Psychiatry . https://doi.org/10.1038/tp.2014.146 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2002). Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication, 52 (3), 566–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02562.x .

Beattie, G. W., & Bogle, G. (1982). The reliability and validity of different video-recording techniques used for analysing gaze in dyadic interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21 (1), 31–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1982.tb00509.x .

Berger, J., & Cunningham, C. (1981). The development of eye contact between mothers and normal versus Down's syndrome infants. Developmental Psychology, 17 (5), 678–689. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.17.5.678 .

Biasutti, M., Concina, E., Wasley, D., & Williamon, A. (2016). Music regulators in two string quartets: A comparison of communicative behaviors between low- and high-stress performance conditions. Frontiers in Psychology . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01229 .

Breed, G. (1972). The effect of intimacy: Reciprocity or retreat? British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 11 (2), 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1972.tb00794.x .

Breed, G., & Porter, M. (1972). Eye contact, attitudes, and attitude change among males. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 120 (2), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1972.10532234 .

Burns, J. A., & Kintz, B. L. (1976). Eye contact while lying during an interview. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 7 (1), 87–89. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03337131 .

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 (1), 89–93.

Cary, M. S. (1978). The role of gaze in the initiation of conversation. Social Psychology, 41 (3), 269–271. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033565 .

Cherulnik, P. D., Neely, W. T., Flanagan, M., & Zachau, M. (1978). Social skill and visual interaction. The Journal of Social Psychology, 104 (2), 263–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1978.9924068 .

Cipolli, C., Sancini, M., Tuozzi, G., Bolzani, R., Mutinelli, P., Flamigni, C., et al. (1989). Gaze and eye-contact with anorexic adolescents. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 62 , 365–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1989.tb02846.x .

Cohen, I. L., Vietze, P. M., Sudhalter, V., Jenkins, E. C., & Brown, W. T. (1989). Parent-child dyadic gaze patterns in fragile X males and in non-fragile X males with autistic disorder. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 30 (6), 845–856.

Cohen, I. L., Vietze, P. M., Sudhalter, V., Jenkins, E. C., & Brown, W. T. (1991). Effects of age and communication level on eye contact in fragile X males and non-fragile X autistic males. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 38 (2–3), 498–502.

Cordell, D. M., & McGahan, J. R. (2004). Mutual gaze duration as a function of length of conversation in male–female dyads. Psychological Reports, 94 (1), 109–114.

Coutts, L. M., & Schneider, F. W. (1975). Visual behavior in an unfocused interaction as a function of sex and distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11 (1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031%2875%2980010-2 .

Coutts, L. M., & Schneider, F. W. (1976). Affiliative conflict theory: An investigation of the intimacy equilibrium and compensation hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34 (6), 1135–1142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.6.1135 .

Dadds, M. R., Allen, J. L., McGregor, K., Woolgar, M., Viding, E., & Scott, S. (2014). Callous-unemotional traits in children and mechanisms of impaired eye contact during expressions of love: A treatment target? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55 (7), 771–780. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12155 .

Dadds, M. R., Allen, J. L., Oliver, B. R., Faulkner, N., Legge, K., Moul, C., et al. (2012). Love, eye contact and the developmental origins of empathy v. psychopathy. British Journal of Psychiatry, 200 (3), 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.110.085720 .

Dadds, M. R., Jambrak, J., Pasalich, D., Hawes, D. J., & Brennan, J. (2011). Impaired attention to the eyes of attachment figures and the developmental origins of psychopathy. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52 (3), 238–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02323.x .

Daly, S. (1978). Behavioural correlates of social anxiety. British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 17 (2), 117–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1978.tb00252.x .

Edmunds, S. R., Rozga, A., Li, Y., Karp, E. A., Ibanez, L. V., Rehg, J. M., et al. (2017). Brief report: Using a point-of-view camera to measure eye gaze in young children with autism spectrum disorder during naturalistic social interactions: A pilot study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47 (3), 898–904.

Escher-Graub, D., Morath, M., & Todt, D. (1982). Timing of visual interaction between infants and an approaching stranger. Infant Behavior & Development, 5 (2), 203–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383%2882%2980029-5 .

Exline, R. V., & Messick, D. (1967). The effects of dependency and social reinforcement upon visual behaviour during an interview. British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 6 (4), 256–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1967.tb00528.x .

Farber, N. J., Liu, L., Chen, Y., Calvitti, A., Street, R. L., Zuest, D., et al. (2015). EHR use and patient satisfaction: What we learned. Journal of Family Practice, 64 (11), 687–696.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Farran, D. C., Hirschbiel, P., & Jay, S. (1980). Toward interactive synchrony: The gaze patterns of mothers and children in three age groups. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 3 (2), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/016502548000300206 .

Farran, D. C., & Kasari, C. (1990). A longitudinal analysis of the development of synchrony in mutual gaze in mother–child dyads. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 11 (4), 419–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973%2890%2990018-F .

Farroni, T., Csibra, G., Simion, F., & Johnson, M. H. (2002). Eye contact detection in humans from birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99 (14), 9602–9605.

Foddy, M. (1978). Patterns of gaze in cooperative and competitive negotiation. Human Relations, 31 (11), 925–938.

Foxx, R. M. (1977). Attention training: The use of overcorrection avoidance to increase the eye contact of autistic and retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10 (3), 489–499.

Franchak, J. M., Kretch, K. S., & Adolph, K. E. (2017). See and be seen: Infant-caregiver social looking during locomotor free play. Developmental Science, 26 , 26. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12626 .

Francis, P. L., Self, P. A., & Noble, C. A. (1982). Maternal verbal control techniques with you infants during mutual gaze and visual co-orientation episodes. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 5 (3), 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/016502548200500303 .

Friedman, S., Thompson, M. A., Crawley, S., Criticos, A., Drake, D., Iacobbo, M., et al. (1976). Mutual visual regard during mother-infant play. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 42 (2), 427–431.

Gamer, M., & Hecht, H. (2007). Are you looking at me? Measuring the cone of gaze. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33 (3), 705.

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 (2nd Half), 227–234.

Gorawara-Bhat, R., & Cook, M. A. (2011). Eye contact in patient-centered communication. Patient Education and Counseling, 82 (3), 442–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.12.002 .

Grossmann, T. (2017). The eyes as windows into other minds. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12 (1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616654457 .

Guillon, Q., Hadjikhani, N., Baduel, S., & Rogé, B. (2014). Visual social attention in autism spectrum disorder: Insights from eye tracking studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 42 , 279–297.

Hadjikhani, N., Johnels, J. Å., Zürcher, N. R., Lassalle, A., Guillon, Q., Hippolyte, L., et al. (2017). Look me in the eyes: Constraining gaze in the eye-region provokes abnormally high subcortical activation in autism. Scientific Reports . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-03378-5 .

Harel, H., Gordon, I., Geva, R., & Feldman, R. (2011). Gaze behaviors of preterm and full-term infants in nonsocial and social contexts of increasing dynamics: Visual recognition, attention regulation, and gaze synchrony. Infancy, 16 (1), 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7078.2010.00037.x .

Harris, S. E. (1978). Schizophrenics' mutual glance patterns. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 41 (1), 83–91.

Hessels, R. S., Cornelissen, T. H. W., Hooge, I. T. C., & Kemner, C. (2017). Gaze behavior to faces during dyadic interaction. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale, 71 (3), 226–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000113 .

Hessels, R. S., Holleman, G. A., Cornelissen, T. H. W., Hooge, I. T. C., & Kemner, C. (2018). Eye contact takes two-autistic and social anxiety traits predict gaze behavior in dyadic interaction. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 9 (2), jep.062917. https://doi.org/10.5127/jep.062917 .

Hessels, R. S., Niehorster, D. C., Nystrom, M., Andersson, R., & Hooge, I. T. C. (2018). Is the eye-movement field confused about fixations and saccades? A survey among 124 researchers. Royal Society Open Science . https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180502 .

Hillen, M. A., de Haes, H. C. J. M., van Tienhoven, G., Bijker, N., van Laarhoven, H. W. M., Vermeulen, D. M., et al. (2015). All eyes on the patient: The influence of oncologists' nonverbal communication on breast cancer patients' trust. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 153 (1), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3486-0 .

Hinchliffe, M. K., Lancashire, M., & Roberts, F. J. (1971). A study of eye-contact changes in depressed and recovered psychiatric patients. British Journal of Psychiatry, 119 (549), 213–215.

Hittelman, J. H., & Dickes, R. (1979). Sex differences in neonatal eye contact time. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 25 (3), 171–184.

Honma, M. (2013). Hyper-volume of eye-contact perception and social anxiety traits. Consciousness and Cognition, 22 (1), 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.12.002 .

Hore, T. (1976). Visual behavior in teacher-pupil dyads. American Educational Research Journal, 13 (4), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.2307/1162389 .

Howell, A. N., Zibulsky, D. A., Srivastav, A., & Weeks, J. W. (2016). Relations among social anxiety, eye contact avoidance, state anxiety, and perception of interaction performance during a live conversation. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 45 (2), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2015.1111932 .

Hurley, J. R., & Bennett, M. K. (1988). Interpersonal ratings and mutual eye contact. Small Group Behavior, 19 (4), 528–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649648801900408 .

Hurley, J. R., & Marsh, V. A. (1986). Contrasting interpersonal correlates of mutual eye-contact reports by self and others. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63 (3), 1267–1274. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1986.63.3.1267 .

Iizuka, Y. (1994). Gaze in cooperative and competitive games. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33 (3), 237–242. https://doi.org/10.2130/jjesp.33.237 .

Jones, R. M., Southerland, A., Hamo, A., Carberry, C., Bridges, C., Nay, S., et al. (2017). Increased eye contact during conversation compared to play in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47 (3), 607–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2981-4 .

Jundi, S., Vrij, A., Mann, S., Hope, L., Hillman, J., Warmelink, L., et al. (2013). Who should I look at? Eye contact during collective interviewing as a cue to deceit. Psychology Crime & Law, 19 (8), 661–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2013.793332 .

Kalma, A. (1992). Gazing in triads: A powerful signal in floor apportionment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31 (1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00953.x .

Keller, H., & Zach, U. (1993). Developmental consequences of early eye contact behaviour. Acta Paedopsychiatrica, 56 (1), 31–36.

Kendon, A., & Cook, M. (1969). The consistency of gaze patterns in social interaction. British Journal of Psychology, 60 (4), 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1969.tb01222.x .

Kleinke, C. L. (1986). Gaze and eye contact—A research review. Psychological Bulletin, 100 (1), 78–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.1.78 .

Klusek, J., Ruber, A., & Roberts, J. E. (2018). Impaired eye contact in the FMR1 premutation is not associated with social anxiety or the broad autism phenotype. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 32 (7), 1337–1352. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1384063 .

Knight, D. J., Langmeyer, D., & Lundgren, D. C. (1973). Eye-contact, distance, and affiliation: The role of observer bias. Sociometry, 36 , 390–401.

Krantz, M., George, S. W., & Hursh, K. (1983). Gaze and mutual gaze of preschool children in conversation. Journal of Psychology, 113 (1st Half), 9–15.

Langer, J. K., Lim, M. H., Fernandez, K. C., & Rodebaugh, T. L. (2017). Social anxiety disorder is associated with reduced eye contact during conversation primed for conflict. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 41 (2), 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-016-9813-x .

Langer, J. K., & Rodebaugh, T. L. (2013). Social anxiety and gaze avoidance: Averting gaze but not anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37 (6), 1110–1120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-013-9546-z .

Lasalle, L. R., & Conture, E. G. (1991). Eye contact between young stutteres and their mothers. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 16 (4), 173–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/0094-730x(91)90001-s .

Lasky, R. E., & Klein, R. E. (1979). The reactions of five-month-old infants to eye contact of the mother and of a stranger. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 25 (3), 163–170.

Leeb, R. T., & Rejskind, F. G. (2004). Here's looking at you, kid! A longitudinal study of perceived gender differences in mutual gaze behavior in young infants. Sex Roles, 50 (1–2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000011068.42663.ce .

Levine, M. H., & Sutton-Smith, B. (1973). Effects of age, sex, and task on visual behavior during dyadic interaction. Developmental Psychology, 9 (3), 400–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034929 .

Libby, W. L., Jr., & Yaklevich, D. (1973). Personality determinants of eye contact and direction of gaze aversion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 27 (2), 197–206.

Lindman, R. (1980). Alcohol and eye contact. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 21 (3), 201–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1980.tb00360.x .

Lohaus, A., Keller, H., Lissmann, I., Ball, J., Borke, J., & Lamm, B. (2006). Eye contact and social contingency experiences from 3 to 6 months of age and their relation to the detection of non-social contingencies. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3 (4), 388–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405620600605323 .

Lohaus, A., Keller, H., & Voelker, S. (2001). Relationships between eye contact, maternal sensitivity, and infant crying. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25 (6), 542–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250042000528 .

Lutchmaya, S., Baron-Cohen, S., & Raggatt, P. (2002). Foetal testosterone and eye contact in 12-month-old human infants. Infant Behavior & Development, 25 (3), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0163-6383(02)00094-2 .

MacDonald, K. (2009). Patient-clinician eye contact: Social neuroscience and art of clinical engagement. Postgraduate Medicine, 121 (4), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.3810/pgm.2009.07.2039 .

MacLean, P. C., Rynes, K. N., Aragon, C., Caprihan, A., Phillips, J. P., & Lowe, J. R. (2014). Mother-infant mutual eye gaze supports emotion regulation in infancy during the still-face paradigm. Infant Behavior & Development, 37 (4), 512–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2014.06.008 .

Mann, S., Ewens, S., Shaw, D., Vrij, A., Leal, S., & Hillman, J. (2013). Lying eyes: Why liars seek deliberate eye contact. Psychiatry Psychology and Law, 20 (3), 452–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2013.791218 .

Mann, S., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Granhag, P. A., Warmelink, L., & Forrester, D. (2012). Windows to the soul? Deliberate eye contact as a cue to deceit. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36 (3), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-012-0132-y .

McAdams, D. P., Jackson, R., & Kirshnit, C. (1984). Looking, laughing, and smiling in dyads as a function of intimacy motivation and reciprocity. Journal of Personality, 52 (3), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1984.tb00881.x .

McCauley, C., Coleman, G., & de Fusco, P. (1978). Commuters' eye contact with strangers in city and suburban train stations: Evidence of short-term adaptation to interpersonal overload in the city. Environmental Psychology & Nonverbal Behavior, 2 (4), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173770 .

Messer, D. J., & Vietze, P. M. (1984). Timing and transitions in mother-infant gaze. Infant Behavior & Development, 7 (2), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383%2884%2980056-9 .

Mobbs, N. (1968). Eye-contact in relation to social introversion/extraversion. British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 7 (4), 305–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1968.tb00574.x .

Muirhead, R. D., & Goldman, M. (1979). Mutual eye contact as affected by seating position, sex, and age. Journal of Social Psychology, 109 (2), 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1979.9924195 .

Nevill, D. (1974). Experimental manipulation of dependency motivation and its effects on eye contact and measures of field dependency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29 (1), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035727 .

Newman, J., & McCauley, C. (1977). Eye contact with strangers in city, suburb, and small town. Environment and Behavior, 9 (4), 547–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391657794006 .

Niedzwiecka, A., Ramotowska, S., & Tomalski, P. (2017). Mutual gaze during early mother–infant interactions promotes attention control development. Child Development, 16 , 16. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12830 .

Nomikou, I., Leonardi, G., Rohlfing, K. J., & Raczaszek-Leonardi, J. (2016). Constructing interaction: The development of gaze dynamics. Infant and Child Development, 25 (3), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1975 .

Nomikou, I., Rohlfing, K. J., & Szufnarowska, J. (2013). Educating attention recruiting, maintaining, and framing eye contact in early natural mother–infant interactions. Interaction Studies, 14 (2), 240–267. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.14.2.05nom .

Orman, E. K. (2010). Effect of virtual reality exposure on eye contact, directional focus, and focus of attention of novice wind band conductors. Journal of Band Research, 46 (1), 1–12.

Papagiannopoulou, E. A., Chitty, K. M., Hermens, D. F., Hickie, I. B., & Lagopoulos, J. (2014). A systematic review and meta-analysis of eye-tracking studies in children with autism spectrum disorders. Social Neuroscience, 9 (6), 610–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2014.934966 .

PelaezNogueras, M., Gewirtz, J. L., Field, T., Cigales, M., Malphurs, J., Clasky, S., et al. (1996). Infants' preference for touch stimulation in face-to-face interactions. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17 (2), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0193-3973(96)90025-8 .

Pellegrini, R. J., Hicks, R. A., & Gordon, L. (1970). The effect of an approval-seeking induction on eye-contact in dyads. British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 9 (4), 373–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1970.tb00987.x .

Phillips, W., Baron-Cohen, S., & Rutter, M. (1992). The role of eye contact in goal detection: Evidence from normal infants and children with autism or mental handicap. Development and Psychopathology, 4 (3), 375–383. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400000845 .

Pieterse, A. H., van Dulmen, A. M., Beemer, F. A., Bensing, J. M., & Ausems, M. G. (2007). Cancer genetic counseling: Communication and counselees' post-visit satisfaction, cognitions, anxiety, and needs fulfillment. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 16 (1), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-006-9048-1 .

Podrouzek, W., & Furrow, D. (1988). Preschoolers' use of eye contact while speaking: The influence of sex, age, and conversational partner. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17 (2), 89–98.

Ponkanen, L. M., & Hietanen, J. K. (2012). Eye contact with neutral and smiling faces: Effects on autonomic responses and frontal EEG asymmetry. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6 , 122.

Rago, W. V., Jr. (1977). Eye gaze and dominance hierarchy in profoundly mentally retarded males. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 82 (2), 145–148.

Ruggieri, V., Celli, C., & Crescenzi, A. (1982). Gesturing and self-contact of right and left halves of the body: Relationship with eye-contact. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 55 (3 Pt 1), 695–698.

Russo, N. F. (1975). Eye contact, interpersonal distance, and the equilibrium theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31 (3), 497–502. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076476 .

Rutter, D., Morley, I. E., & Graham, J. C. (1972). Visual interaction in a group of introverts and extraverts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2 (4), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420020403 .

Rutter, D., Stephenson, G., Ayling, K., & White, P. (1978). The timing of looks in dyadic conversation. British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 17 (1), 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1978.tb00890.x .

Rutter, D. R. (1976). Visual interaction in recently admitted and chronic long-stay schizophrenic patients. British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 15 (3), 295–303.

Saenz, J., & Alexander, G. M. (2013). Digit ratios (2D:4D), postnatal testosterone and eye contact in toddlers. Biological Psychology, 94 (1), 106–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.05.010 .

Schofield, T. J., Parke, R. D., Castaneda, E. K., & Coltrane, S. (2008). Patterns of gaze between parents and children in European American and Mexican American families. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 32 (3), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-008-0049-7 .

Schulz, R., & Barefoot, J. (1974). Non-verbal responses and affiliative conflict theory. British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 13 (3), 237–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1974.tb00116.x .

Schulze, L., Renneberg, B., & Lobmaier, J. S. (2013). Gaze perception in social anxiety and social anxiety disorder. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7 , 872. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00872 .

Senju, A., & Johnson, M. H. (2009a). The eye contact effect: Mechanisms and development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13 (3), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.11.009 .

Senju, A., & Johnson, M. H. (2009b). Atypical eye contact in autism: Models, mechanisms and development. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 33 (8), 1204–1214.

Sharpley, C. F., & Sagris, A. (1995). Does eye contact increase counsellor-client rapport? Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 8 (2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515079508256332 .

Shaw, M. E., Bowman, J., & Haemmerlie, F. M. (1971). The validity of measures of eye-contact. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31 (4), 919–925. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447103100413 .

Sitton, S. C., & Griffin, S. T. (1981). Detection of deception from clients' eye contact patterns. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28 (3), 269–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.28.3.269 .

Slane, S., Dragan, W., Crandall, C. J., & Payne, P. (1980). Stress effects on the nonverbal behavior of repressors and sensitizers. Journal of Psychology, 106 (1st Half), 101–109.

Stephenson, G., Rutter, D., & Dore, S. (1973). Visual interaction and distance. British Journal of Psychology, 64 (2), 251–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1973.tb01349.x .

Sturm, V. E., McCarthy, M. E., Yun, I., Madan, A., Yuan, J. W., Holley, S. R., et al. (2011). Mutual gaze in Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal and semantic dementia couples. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6 (3), 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq055 .

Thepsoonthorn, C., Yokozuka, T., Miura, S., Ogawa, K., & Miyake, Y. (2016). Prior knowledge facilitates mutual gaze convergence and head nodding synchrony in face-to-face communication. Scientific Reports . https://doi.org/10.1038/srep38261 .

Thompson, T. L. (1982). Gaze toward and avoidance of the handicapped: A field experiment. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6 (3), 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987067 .

Turkstra, L. S. (2005). Looking while listening and speaking: Eye-to-face gaze in adolescents with and without traumatic brain injury. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 48 (6), 1429–1441. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/099) .

van der Geest, J. N., Kemner, C., Verbaten, M. N., & van Engeland, H. (2002). Gaze behavior of children with pervasive developmental disorder toward human faces: A fixation time study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43 (5), 669–678.

White, J., Hegarty, J., & Beasley, N. (1970). Eye contact and observer bias: A research note. British Journal of Psychology, 61 (2), 271–273.

Williams, J. A., Burns, E. L., & Harmon, E. A. (2009). Insincere utterances and gaze: Eye contact during sarcastic statements. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 108 (2), 565–572. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.108.2.565-572 .

Yuichi, I. U. (1992). Eye contact in dating couples and unacquainted couples. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75 (2), 457–461.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Chiara Jongerius, Ellen M. A. Smets & Marij A. Hillen

Experimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Roy S. Hessels

Developmental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Department of Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Johannes A. Romijn

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chiara Jongerius .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Used search strings per database.

• The terms ‘direct’, ‘mutual’ and ‘dyadic’ combined with ‘gaze’ or ‘gazing’ are often used as a synonym for eye contact

Predefined extraction form

Year of publication

Study aim (or research question)

Study design

Study setting

Sample (describe when possible: number of participants, number of groups, age category (infant/children/adolescents/adults/elderly), healthy or diagnosis)

Study methodology

Definition/operationalization of eye contact

Description of used measurements

Participant behavior

Tables of co-occurrences of age group versus operationalisation and field of study vs. operationalisation.

• Numbers in the table represent the number of studies for each category

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Jongerius, C., Hessels, R.S., Romijn, J.A. et al. The Measurement of Eye Contact in Human Interactions: A Scoping Review. J Nonverbal Behav 44 , 363–389 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-020-00333-3

Download citation

Published : 20 April 2020

Issue Date : September 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-020-00333-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Eye contact
• Mutual gaze
• Measurement
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Adv Med Educ Prof
• v.5(2); 2017 Apr

The impact of the teachers’ non-verbal communication on success in teaching

Fatemeh bambaeeroo.

1 Paramedical Sciences Faculty, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

NASRIN SHOKRPOUR

2 English Department, Paramedical Sciences Faculty, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Introduction:

Non-verbal communication skills, also called sign language or silent language, include all behaviors performed in the presence of others or perceived either consciously or unconsciously. The main aim of this review article was to determine the effect of the teachers’ non-verbal communication on success in teaching using the findings of the studies conducted on the relationship between quality of teaching and the teachers’ use of non-verbal communication and also its impact on success in teaching.

Considering the research method, i.e. a review article, we searched for all articles in this field using key words such as success in teaching, verbal communication and non-verbal communication. In this study, we did not encode the articles.

The results of this revealed that there was a strong relationship among the quality, amount and the method of using non-verbal communication by teachers while teaching. Based on the findings of the studies reviewed, it was found that the more the teachers used verbal and non-verbal communication, the more efficacious their education and the students’ academic progress were. Under non-verbal communication, some other patterns were used. For example, emotive, team work, supportive, imaginative, purposive, and balanced communication using speech, body, and pictures all have been effective in students’ learning and academic success. The teachers’ attention to the students’ non-verbal reactions and arranging the syllabus considering the students’ mood and readiness have been emphasized in the studies reviewed.

Conclusion:

It was concluded that if this skill is practiced by teachers, it will have a positive and profound effect on the students’ mood. Non-verbal communication is highly reliable in the communication process, so if the recipient of a message is between two contradictory verbal and nonverbal messages, logic dictates that we push him toward the non-verbal message and ask him to pay more attention to non-verbal than verbal messages because non-verbal cues frequently reveal the intention of the sender of the information and reflect his/her emotional reactions. Based on the obtained results of this study, it is recommended that attention to non-verbal communication skills can make a positive change in the future of a student’s life. It seems necessary for the teachers to practice and learn effective communication skills, especially for those who always interact with a large group of students. One of the factors contributing to the success or failure of students is the quality of the relationship and how the teacher builds this relationship with students. Especially, it is more effective for students who are more responsive to human relations and communication skills. Finally, it is recommended that the teachers should improve their communication skills to have better communication with their audience. The authorities are recommended to help improve the teachers’ level of communication skills through holding training courses.

Introduction

Communication is one of the God’s great gifts bestowed to human. God not only created speaking potential with diverse dialects in the human body, but also taught him how to use it through inspiration, his inner instinct, or external guidance. Among different forms of communication in human communities, education, or teaching, requires effective communication with the learner if it is to be successful. The person with a holy job as teaching should be competent in a variety of skills, one of the important of which is body language or non-verbal communication.

The main aim of this review article was to determine the effect of the teachers’ non-verbal communication on success in teaching using the findings of the studies conducted on the relationship between quality of teaching and the teachers’ use of non-verbal communication and its impact on success in teaching. In this study, we reviewed the related research on: Verbal and non-verbal communication concepts, Teaching concept and various communication skills used in teaching, The barriers to effective non-verbal communication during teaching and suggestions for teachers’ success in effective non-verbal communication with the students.

Subsidiary questions: To deeply survey different aspects of the subject under the study, the following questions were posed: 1) What is non-verbal communication? 2) Does the use of non-verbal communication lead to success in teaching? 3) What are the efficacious methods of non-verbal communication during teaching?

In this study, we reviewed the available and related articles to the research subject and objectives.

The findings of this study can be summarized as follows:

• 1. The correlation between the academic staff’s communication skills and the students’ academic success was 0.572, indicating the significant and positive relationship between the mentioned factors ( 1 ).
• 2. The correlation coefficient among the teachers’ non-verbal communication skills, their verbal communication and the students’ academic achievement was 0.81 which reveals the significant relationship among these factors ( 2 ).
• 3. The students undergoing inappropriate behaviors in class and school have learned such features as obedience, adaptation, lack of assertiveness, and avoidance from objections, all of which have deteriorated their tendency toward curiosity, creativity, self-esteem, and independence ( 3 ). Emphasis on the students’ obedience in school will make the students learn dependence rather than freedom and independence, social discipline rather than personal respect, imitation of others’ personality rather than self-development, and obedience of the rules set by others rather than self-discipline. Such students usually lack sufficient self-esteem and independence and have no favorable attitude toward their own personality. Such features are not consistent with educational aims and hinder proper education.
• 4. There was a significant relationship between non-verbal communication, as one of the communication skills, and the efficacy of educational departments (p=0.54). Also, there was a significant relationship between the lecturers’ communication skills and increase in the students’ motivation to learn and their academic success (p=0.60, p=0.54) ( 4 ).
• 5. In a study on the factors affecting improvement in educational communication, Mortazavi ( 5 ) stated various effective communications in the educational fields including pictorial communication, the Internet and computer relations, relationship with the learning environment attention, etc., among which the latter and verbal and non-verbal communication are the most effective on both teacher and learner.
• Synthesis of findings : The synthesis of the results of the studies reviewed can be summarized as follows:

1. The concept of communication

Man needs to communicate with others in his daily life. Daily activities show that many activities cannot be performed without communicating with others. Many researchers and experts have defined communication. For example, Aristotle defined communication as the use of available resources to find a way to encourage others express their ideas and opinions. The aim of communication is to develop motivation in the addressee.

Communication means social development and the source of culture and spiritual development so that lack of communication leads to a relative static state in human life, which prevents any kind of social development ( 6 ). One of the characteristics of professional teachers is their ability to engage in effective, meaningful and purposeful relationship with educators. In case a teacher is scientifically competent but is not able to communicate effectively with the learners, he/she is not able to teach satisfactorily; thus, the teaching-learning process has not been fully implemented.

To this end, for more teachers’ familiarity, scholars of the field of education should firstly acquire the information and skills which are required to communicate well with students. Various methods of communication suggest these skills as those of the relationship between voluntary and involuntary, formal and informal, one-sided and two-way, and verbal and non-verbal communication.

2. The concept of teaching

Safavi ( 7 ) points out in his research that different definitions of teaching have been provided by different researchers, all of which have two characteristics in common:

• ✓ Interaction or relationship between teachers and learners
• ✓ objectivity of this activity on behalf of the teacher

Thus, teaching can be defined as teacher’s planned activities to create an ever-lasting change in the learners’ behavior which is done in the form of a mutual relationship. The stronger this relationship and the communication skills are, the deeper the outcome of this interaction will be, i.e. the stable and effective learning. Only in this way the teacher can develop and emerge the students' potentials. Therefore, before any action for teaching, the teacher’s relationship with the students should be strengthened at the beginning.

3. Importance of non-verbal communication

Non-verbal communication is often more subtle and more effective than verbal communication and can convey meaning better than words. For example, perhaps a smile conveys our feeling much easier than words. Silent speech is of great importance in human’s daily interactions and it influences one’s chances of failure or success in personal and professional social encounters.

Also, the Holy Quran in several cases refers to this point, for example for the tolerant and poor people, it is stated: “You would know them by their appearance” and says about the hypocrites: “and you will know them by the tone of their speech”. Also, Imam Ali (AS) believed that one’s appearance is the indicator of his/her internal state. Whenever a person conceals something in his/her heart, it manifests itself in the expressions of his face. “No one can hide anything in the unseen since it is evident in his/her thoughtless words and his/her face”.

According to the studies conducted, at each conversation only seven percent of the concepts are expressed in the form of spoken words. Most of the information is transferred through the complex combination of appearance, posture, limb movement, sight, and facial expressions. On the other hand, the effect of most body language acts lower than the addressee’s awareness, i.e. the addressee receives the profound effects of the issue without being aware of it. So, the people who have the ability to use these skills have the potential to guide others in a particular direction to achieve their goals, and precisely for this reason most of the human interactions involve non-verbal communication. Body language has the power to transfer the attitudes and feelings of people to others and in many cases can be even more effective than verbal messages ( 8 ).

In this regard, numerous studies have been conducted by Oskouhi et al. ( 1 ) on the role of non-verbal communication on educational performance of faculty members of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resource University in Sari; the results of the study showed a significant positive correlation between non-verbal communication skills and educational performance of Sari faculty members of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University.

4- Variety of communication skills in teaching

As mentioned above, proper communication between the teacher and students is the most important skills in teaching. If this relationship is well established, educational goals will be more easily realized with a high quality.

In the process of communicating, three main factors play a role, including signaling (teacher), messages (instructional), receiver (student) ( 9 ). Accordingly, first of all, the teacher himself/herself or by teaching aids sends a message to the students as the receiver of the message. In the next step, the students respond to teacher’s messages and send a new message to the teacher who is the receiver of the message this time. An important point in communication process is that the teacher-students relationship in the classroom is one of the complex human relationships, and certainly different ways are involved in how to establish this communication, e.g. two types of verbal and non-verbal communication.

Verbal communication in teaching

Such communication can be defined as total relationships that can be achieved through speaking and conversation. Teachers should use the words carefully to be successful in teaching. Each word provokes a feeling in people, specific emotions, and distinct function. If the words are applied in their proper place, it would affect the soul and body of the audience immediately. Therefore, it is appropriate that the teacher avoids using negative words in dealing with the students, i.e. such words as “I can’t, it’s impossible, is not possible, never, etc...”.

A successful educator in the field of teaching should be aware of the power of words and its impact on the audience and avoid using words habitually without thinking. Also, ordering is one of the conflicts which leads to failure in human interaction. The teacher should express his opinion with proper words and within the defined framework for his comments to be effective and penetrating. Therefore, the teacher, as the sender of the message, should first determine the framework of his message and then express his expectations of the students frankly with appropriate tone and words ( 3 ).

Expression of words clearly and eloquently by the educator causes the students to listen with dignity and willingness, sum up the facts, and think to solve the problem and supply the teacher’s comment without any tension or boredom. But using biased phrases often raises a sense of stubbornness and humiliation in the trainee, puts him out of the cycle of learning and deep understanding of scientific content completely, and leaves irreparable psychological effects on the student.

In the selection of words, the intended concept must be exactly in the words of the educator. It is appropriate to use clear, concise, accurate, polite, correct and rich expression in oral communication with the audience to transmit the speaker's intentions to the audience properly ( 4 ).

Verbal skills are generally divided into four parts: listening, speaking, reading and writing. Among these skills, speaking has the higher degree of importance and usefulness and has more decisive impact on oral communication with the audience ( 10 ).

It is worth noting that speaking skill requires non-verbal communication, or body language to complete its impact on the audience. In interactive communication which is based only on words and phrases, and the message sender does not use any non-verbal communication methods such as facial expressions, eye contact, and overall condition of the body and hands movement, we cannot not expect proper understanding of the message from the audience

Non-verbal communication during teaching

More than half of our face to face conversations are non-verbal and sign language, and gestures express our feelings and attitudes without saying a word. There was a significant correlation between the teacher’s appropriate and timely verbal and non-verbal behaviors and students’ achievement and good behavior ( 2 ). The results of the present study indicated that there was a correlation between the teachers’ verbal and non-verbal communication skills and students’ learning and motivation. Ambiguity in the teacher’s speech is known as the main obstacle in the teachers and students’ relationship, and in total, according to the teachers, most of the communication barriers in schools are related to human.

If the teacher has an encouraging manner tailored to the students’ status, he/she can achieve effective results with his communication with students. Also, if the teacher uses humiliating speech, his relationship with the students will deteriorate ( 3 ).

Facial expression, eye contact, physical appearance, etc. … express a message. Facial expression is more effective than other modes of non-verbal cues and gives us a lot of information about the emotional status of others to the extent that some theorists believe that facial expression is the most important source of information after language.

In the field of teaching, certainly one of the main characteristics of good teachers is good communication skill in classroom, and most of the observed stress in the classroom arises from the lack of proper communication ( 4 ). The classroom administration and constructive conflict resolution in the classroom require good communication skills, the most important of which is non-verbal skills. By using this skill, teachers can play a major role in the success of their students. Through the use of non-verbal language, teachers draw the student’s attention to more understanding and motivate the students and even bring excitement to the bored students. The students unconsciously receive non-verbal signals sent from the teacher; they immediately notice that the one standing before them is teaching by all his/her will or is constantly waiting for the class to be ended.

Therefore, it should be mentioned that non-verbal communication can supplement or replace verbal communication; it is either a repetition of verbal messages, making verbal communication more prominent and specific, or completes the verbal communication. Human beings use non-verbal behavior in order to complete their interpersonal interaction; they rely on non-verbal behavior to recognize when to speak, when to let others to speak, and how to speak.

Non-verbal communication often makes interactional concepts since communication always has two literal and conceptual levels of meaning, and this type of communication is associated with semantic level. It reflects cultural values. This claim implicitly indicates that most of the non-verbal behaviors are acquired during socialization and are totally variable, depending on culture and traditions ( 11 ).

An important point in non-verbal communication is the use of this relationship, especially when teaching correctly and timely ( 12 ). Teachers who had used non-verbal communication techniques in interacting with students with physical and motor impairment in Tehran province had played an effective role in increasing the students’ self-esteem and reducing their shyness ( 13 ). An appropriate method of using non-verbal communication is that the teacher gives problem solving assignment to the student according to their intellectual ability. He shows them that he is aware of their abilities and creates motivation in them. Thus, he is willing to solve the problem; on the other hand, if the teacher indirectly tells the students that he doesn’t think he is able to solve the problem, the student will be afraid as well. These mutual reactions are not important in school; rather, they are important in all human relationships, especially between parents and children ( 14 ).

The teacher’s timely use of non-verbal communication can be done through a simple greeting with students which is the best way to start the class, and is of course impossible without non-verbal language ( 5 ). An experienced speaker begins his speech by talking directly to one of the listeners, tries to look at each student throughout the speech one by one, and changes the tone of his voice during a speech so that the students do not get tired.

Teachers’ non-verbal language can be effective if students can see the teacher rather than the teacher was being hidden behind a desk or board or teaching while turning his back to students. The best place for the teacher in class is standing near his/her table and all students see him. The teacher should not put his hands in his pockets, as this limits his activeness. It is best for the teacher to keep his/her hands free; this indicates the readiness of teachers to communicate with the students. The teacher must sometimes change his place, but if he/she always changes his/her place physically in class, the focus of learners will reduce and learning process will not proceed. Another important point is that the teacher must look at individual students. Otherwise, the students will have the impression that the teacher is ignoring them, so the effect of looking at the audience is undeniable.

The right way for addressing the student is that the teacher should not point to the student by his/her finger when asking question because the student feels fearful and anxious in this case. The best method is that the teacher assumes a space with the student looks at him/her directly and points to him/her with full hand ( 8 ).

Conscious use of non-verbal language is not a show, but rather it makes the effects of individual words better; the more natural the non-verbal language is, the more acceptable it is to the audience. Teachers who use non-verbal language properly have a better relationship with their students.

Often some barriers to effective communication, both verbal and non-verbal, arise in the classroom. In order to communicate properly, especially in the case of non-verbal communication, it is necessary that the educator identifies the factors detrimental to effective communication and resolve them.

The main obstacles are as follows ( 9 ):

1- Teachers’ lack of awareness of student’s level of understanding: Experience has shown that if educational activities are not in the domain of the students’ knowledge and level of understanding, learning and achieving educational goals are little or they do not happen at all. To prevent these problems, first of all educational message should be presented according to the students’ level of understanding and then different methods should be used, especially non-verbal communication, for better understanding.

2- Long oral arguments: When teachers teach just orally for a long time, students gradually get discouraged from pursuing the teacher’s discussions. This indicates that human beings automatically listen to the favorite sounds at first, and then they block their sense of hearing on inappropriate content. To resolve this problem, a variety of teaching methods, ways of communicating, etc. can be useful.

3- Boring message: When the educational activities in the classroom are not interesting to the students, they pay less attention to it, so good communication will not take place during learning. To generate interest and motivate the students, teachers can use different communication methods.

4- Dreaming: Another factor impacting effective communication is the student’s daydreaming during teaching, which makes them temporarily out of the classroom and into their personal experience and their dream. According to the principles of psychology, personal experiences can be more attractive for individuals and they can replace and set aside materials which are less attractive for students. Experienced and knowledgeable teachers can identify such students, and use more interesting methods to communicate with them. Of course, in such cases the use of non-verbal communication methods will be very effective.

5- Inappropriate physical factors: Inappropriate physical condition can disconnect the learners from their teachers. So, the suitability of light and color in the class setting, comfortable seats, etc. … can be effective to prevent the occurrence of these factors.

Differences and similarities between verbal and non-verbal skills

Verbal and non-verbal communications have differences and similarities ( 14 ):

In these cases, the following differences can be noted:

1- Non-verbal communication is more reliable: One of the main differences in the two kinds of communication is that non-verbal communication is more reliable for the audience, especially when verbal and non-verbal messages are inconsistent.

2- Non-verbal communication is multi-faceted: The second difference between the two systems of communication is that non-verbal communication is often established simultaneously in two or more channels.

3- Non-verbal communication is continuous: Compared to verbal communication that is less continual, non-verbal one is.

Moreover, the similarities include:

• Both are symbolic: Non-verbal communication as well as verbal communication is symbolic. Shrug of the shoulders, drop-down eyes, and distance or closeness to others ... are each a symbol of a message at that moment and condition.
• Both are formulated: According to the culture and traditions of the society, community members know which non-verbal behavior is appropriate for every situation and in that situation, what it means.

Summary answers to research questions:

The ability to speak and talk is one of the most important characteristics of human that makes him/her superior to other creatures. He/She can use words and sentences to express his/her feelings and make others aware of them. On the other hand, willingly or unwillingly, in an environment with silence and no verbal language where only body language is used, he/she can transfer his/her feeling or exchange the meaning of words. For example, a person’s interest or friendship is not acceptable with frowning. Therefore, by the use of this language, interests, emotions, and feeling could be expressed well. In other words, there are other eloquent languages in the silent and quiet world, the knowledge of which is very helpful in effective communication.

Non-verbal communication includes all aspects of communication except the use of words. In other words, non-verbal communication includes not only gestures and movements of the body but also the way that the words are expressed, such as the music of the words, interruptions, loudness and accents; these non-verbal features affect the meaning of words ( 12 ).

In this regard, numerous studies have been conducted by Oskouhi et al. ( 1 ) on the role of non-verbal communication on educational performance of faculty members of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resource University in Sari; the results showed a significant positive correlation between non-verbal communication skills and educational performance of Sari faculty members of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University.

The students’ attitude about English vocabulary and their comprehension with non-verbal communication indicated that they had a positive attitude toward the use of non-verbal communication in learning the second language ( 12 ).

Moreover, Mortazavi ( 5 ) conducted a study on meta-analysis of communication patterns in mathematics journals’ articles. The results of the study revealed that supportive, collaborative and emotive methods in the form of body language, both audio and video, are effective for learners to enhance the performance in learning mathematics.

Najafi ( 4 ) in his study on "the relationship between communication skills and educational effectiveness of teachers of girls in Valiasr Technical College in Tehran" showed that as teachers' communication skills get further strengthened, the effectiveness of scientific groups, students’ learning motivation, and academic achievement as well as verbal and non-verbal communication skills increases.

To clarify the point and considering the study results, it can be mentioned that there is a kind of interaction in all human communications, such as multiple forms of non-verbal communication, exchange of information and meaning through facial expressions, gestures or body movements. And this interaction is so useful that we can say, when a person learns to interpret the body language, no words would be as clear as it is.

• What are the efficacious methods of non-verbal communication during teaching?
• Body Language: Non-verbal communication is an important part of human interaction. For example, tone, facial expressions and gestures can transfer the people’s attitudes and feelings to others and the actions in many cases can be even more effective than verbal messages.
• Language of Space: When we talk with someone, we tend to keep up personal space with him unconsciously. This space depends on the culture and positions. For example, friends stand closer compared to strangers. Language of space can be divided into intimate space, personal space, social space, and public space.
• Language of Touch: Touch is the first sense of our body that a child learns after birth, and the first experience of his relationships with others arises trough touching.
• Language of Objects: Clothing and appearance are often the basis for initial judgments about people and have a significant impact on the others’ judgment about us. In fact, the language of objects ranges from the clothes we wear to the food we put on the table for our guests.
• Language of Time: By considering the concept of time in different cultures, our relationship with others develops and becomes effective.
• Language of Signs and Password: The password is a group of signs and symbols that can be made in a manner that is meaningful to some people.
• Language of Phonetics: Language of phonetics distinguishes our emotions from each other and affects our judgment about people’s personality and social characters. The sound of every human being is unique and is a combination of the qualities that are exclusively his or hers.

The present study aimed to review the research articles to determine the impact of the teachers’ use of non-verbal communication on success in teaching. The available research articles conducted in this area were reviewed. From the results of the reviewed articles, it was found that:

• a. There should be an attempt to attract and guide the learner’s attention through verbal and non-verbal communication during teaching.
• b. Humor, fun and coordination of sound and picture are effective in the promotion of the learners’ audiovisual communication.
• c. The teachers’ challenging, and destructive relationship with the students leads to failure in learning.
• d. Peace, security, and mutual respectful relationship among the students are influential in comprehending the educational materials.
• e. Teachers’ multi-faceted relationship with students through various communication skills , both verbal and non-verbal, leads to maximum efficacy of the educational materials.
• f. Supportive non-verbal communication with isolated and non-assertive students will help them to enter team work activities. Through the teachers and other learners’ support, they will attain the mental peace to learn.
• g. During the use of verbal communication for students’ encouragement, the teachers are recommended to use the corresponding non-verbal communication patterns.
• h. The teachers are suggested to pay attention to the students’ attitudes and ask their questions in a way that the learners feel the question is designed for them and participate in the discussions.
• i. The teachers’ non-verbal communication during the students’ speech signifies their acceptability and avoidance of self-centeredness.
• j. Teachers’ attention to the students’ non-verbal behaviors in the classroom, e.g. eye contact, signs of tiredness, etc. are of importance, showing the teachers’ coordination with the students’ mental and physical status.

Limitations of the review:

This study, like any other research, had some limitations as follows:

• - Lack of sufficient studies focusing on the effect and dimensions of non-verbal communication; hence, we could not generalize their methods and results. It seems that this lies in the lack of awareness about the positive impact of non-verbal communication as used by the instructors.
• - Lack of enough research on the non-verbal communication skills and practice in teaching.

Recommendations for further research:

Considering the results of this study, future studies are recommended to research non-verbal communication skill and its effects on teaching and learning more deeply and specifically. Also, it is suggested that educational programs and workshops should be held on efficacious relationship among the learners and teachers so that the students get practically familiar with non-verbal communication skills to solve their problems and mental disorders by their counselors.

Conclusions

This article reviewed had some limitations. First, most of the studies had focused on other types of communication rather than purely on non-verbal communication. Moreover, in most of the studies, little attention had been paid to non-verbal communication. Also, due to lack of studies in the field of educational communication, there was no access to recent studies in this regard.

Conflict of interests: None declared.