Researchers Discover Why It’s Hard to Maintain Eye Contact During Conversation
The average amount of eye contact adults make is 30-60% per conversation, 60-70% if they feel invested.
In many countries and regions of the world, take East Asia for instance, looking someone in the eye is considered rude. If that person is above you on the social hierarchy, say a professor, parent, or boss, doing so can be considered defiant. In the West however, maintaining eye contact is a sign of respect and earnestness. Avoiding eye contact is thought to be for a reason, such as you are lying, anxious, socially awkward, guilty, or untrustworthy. Sometimes it even telegraphs boredom with the topic of discussion.
Adults make eye contact through 30-60% of a conversation, on average. Those who have a stake in it maintain eye contact 60-70% of the time. Now, a new study in the journal Cognition finds that those who occasionally have trouble maintaining eye contact do so merely because they’re cogitating.
Scientists at Kyoto University in Japan discovered that maintaining eye contact while processing what a person is saying is sometimes taxing on the brain. The brain finds it difficult to “share cognitive resources,” and so one breaks eye contact in order to better process what’s being said. The problem centers in the verbal processing portion of the brain. Here, both selection and retrieval of words occurs.
To understand the reason why face-to-face conversationalists sometimes break eye contact, researchers recruited 26 volunteers. Each was asked to play a word-association game which entailed staring into a series of faces projected on a computer screen. Some looked right at the person, while others looked away. Here when a noun was selected, say frisbee, a volunteer was asked to reply with a verb, say catch.
Sometimes volunteers maintained eye contact when playing the game. At other times, they looked away. Researchers were sure to pick both easy and hard associations. “Leaf” and “sky” were among the more difficult ones. Investigators noted how long it took for participants to respond and how often they broke eye contact. They took more time to respond to difficult questions, as one might imagine. But breaking eye contact shortened response time.
Researchers suggest that holding one’s gaze helps with bonding by heightening one’s connection to the other person. But it’s demanding on the brain. They wrote that when we look away, “we are trying to keep our brains from overloading.” Investigators say this helps us better understand how nonverbal communication interacts with the verbal kind. That’s important, as 85% of communication is nonverbal.
To learn some tips on how to make eye contact work for you, click here:
Understanding thinking talents in yourself and others can build strong teams and help avoid burnout.
- Learn to collaborate within a team and identify "thinking talent" surpluses – and shortages.
- Angie McArthur teaches intelligent collaboration for Big Think Edge.
- Subscribe to Big Think Edge before we launch on March 30 to get 20% off monthly and annual memberships.
The Canadian professor has been on the Joe Rogan Experience six times. There's a lot of material to discuss.
- Jordan Peterson has constantly been in the headlines for his ideas on gender over the last three years.
- While on Joe Rogan's podcast, he explains his thoughts on the gender differences in society.
- On another episode, Peterson discusses the development of character through competition.
The blood of horseshoe crabs is harvested on a massive scale in order to retrieve a cell critical to medical research. However, recent innovations might make this practice obsolete.
- Horseshoe crabs' blue blood is so valuable that a quart of it can be sold for $15,000.
- This is because it contains a molecule that is crucial to the medical research community.
- Today, however, new innovations have resulted in a synthetic substitute that may end the practice of farming horseshoe crabs for their blood.
David Wallace-Wells points out that the people who can save the world just aren't all that interested.
- Saving the world from the apocalyptic impact of climate change should be a dream for many Silicon Valley titans concerned about legacy, says David Wallace-Wells, and yet few are dedicating themselves to addressing the catastrophe.
- Negative emissions technology funded by Bill Gates exists. It would cost $3 trillion per year to operate and would mean human industry could continue at current levels without global warming.
- That figure sounds astronomical, however global subsidies to fossil fuel industries cost $5 trillion per year.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.