Percepttc61 and Motor Skills, 1975, 40,475-481. @ Perceptual and Motor Skills 1975
EYE MOVEMENT I N PERCEPTION OF ANOTHER PERSON'S LOOKLNG BEHAVIOR ROBERT
DEUTSCH AND CARL AUERBACH1 Yeshiva University
Summary.-Eye contact is a non-verbal behavior category of major concern in the study of social interaction. Within chis category many behaviors are included which serve a wide range of functions. It was hypothesied that ( 1 ) one of the important stimulus properties that distinguish these behaviors is the movement pattern of the eyes and ( 2 ) that people use different criteria to judge whether another person is looking at them, depending upon whether the other person is displaying a dynamic or static eye presentation. Data are presented ro support these hypotheses.
This study is one of a small number of studies which use psychophysical methods to investigate human visual behavior. The specific hypotheses for this study are derived from the growing body of literature concerning the function of the visual modality in social interaction. W e review this material in order to present the rationale of our hypotheses. Because man is predominantly a visual animal, the use of the visual system has been a major concern in the study of interaction patterns. N o other of man's receptor systems provides such continuous andLabundant information. Philosophers and sociologists have often commented on the fact that eye contact is one of the non-verbal processes people use to establish relationships with one another. Simmel (1921) noted that mutual eye contact is perhaps the most direct and purest reciprocity which can exist between people. Ortega y Gasset (1957) and Ogden ( 1961 ) suggest also that glances constantly remind us that there are others present in the world with intentions and motives of their own. Sartre, analyzing the experience one has when another enters his visual field writes, "when the other looks at me, a basic change occurs in my way of being. I become aware of myself as being an object for another, placed in a situation not defined by me. The other, by looking at me, becomes the limit of my freedom. I realize this experience not by way of cognition, but by a sentiment of uneasiness or discomfort" (Sartre, 1957, p. 236). Psychologists and psychoanalysts have also been concerned with the use of the visual system in interaction. Investigators have demonstrated that both non-human primates and man manifest physiological and behavioral changes when they experience that they are being looked at (e.g., Wada, 1961; Wardwell, 19602). Tomkins (1963) has noted that there exists a universal taboo 'Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Carl Auerbach, Psychology Department, Yeshiva University.. . 55 Fifth Avenue. New York. N. Y. 10003. 'J. S. Shrauger. Self-esteem and reactions to being observed by others. (Unpublished manuscript, State Univer. at Buffalo, 1972)
476
R. DEUTSCH
&
C. AUERBACH
on looking and suggests that this is so because of its direct link with sexuality.
In addition, the visual modality has been hypothesized to play a part in the regulation of conversations (Kendon, 1967), in the announcement of social accessibility (Kendon & Ferber, 1973), in defining a relationship (Goffman, 1972), and in communicating threat and dominance (e.g., Ellsworth, Carlsmith, & Henson, 19723). It seems, then, that there are functionally distinct visual signals. What makes these signals functionally distinct? Our hypothesis is that functionally distinct visual signals possess different physical properties, especially their movement patterns. Two considerations led to this hypothesis. The first is that movement patterns can carry meaning. Heider and Simrnel (1944) used an animated circle and triangle to demonstrate a reliable correspondence between specific movement patterns of the figures and patterns of perceived social relations. These social relations were judged as being "in" the movements of the figures, and this suggests that the essential dimensions of some social stimuli are the movement patterns they possess. The second was that internal representations of external stimuli are isomorphic to the corresponding external stimuli, as was demonstrated by Shepard and Chipman (1970). It seems reasonable, then, that functionally distinct visual signals have different internal representations, and that different movement patterns are the external basis for these internal representations. W e chose to investigate this by examining whether visual signals with different movement patterns could be differentiated on the basis of a psychophysical method. TOdo so we extend a study by Gibson and Pick (1963) on the perception of where another person is looking. Our basic question was whether acuity or accuracy for the judgment of direction of the gaze depend on whether the mode of eye presentation is static or dynamic. Moreover, we chose to investigate the importance of direct eye contact in the frontal plane by having two dynamic conditions, namely, with and without crossover of a point directly between the subject's eyes. The dynamic conditions were subdivided in this way on the basis of suggestions by Gibson and Pick and by Cline (1967) that glancing at a point between the eyes of another person may provide special information that you are looking at that person. Two experiments were performed, the first to investigate our basic hypothesis, and the second to answer some questions arising out of the first. W e report each separately.
EXPERIMENT I The aim of the first experiment is to compare the accuracy and acuity Ss have for the perception of being looked at with a dynamic presentation of the eyes with that for being looked at with a static presentation of the eyes. 'R. Exline & B. Long. Visual behavior in relation to power of position in legitimate and illegitimate power hierarchies. (Unpublished manuscript, Univer. of Delaware, 1971)
EYE MOVEMENT 1N PERCEPTION
Method
The experimental arrangement and procedure are essentially those employed by Gibson and Pick (1963). S was seated directly opposite E at a distance of two meters. Marked on the wall behind S's head were seven p i n t s : a center point (point 4 ) corresponding to a position just above the bridge of SSnose, and three points on either side of the center point, each 10 cm apart (points 1, 2, and 3 on the right side of S's head; points 5, 6, and 7 on the left side of f s head). E, while maintaining a constant, passive facial expression, fixated on one of the seven points in accordance with a pre-arranged random order. Ss were instructed to make a judgment "yes" or "no" after each eye presentation as to whether or not E was visually fixated on a point lying directly between S's eyes. After the judgment was made, E looked away, recorded the judgment and prepared for the next trial. The experiment had the form of a 3 X 3 factorial design. Ss made 25 judgments for each of the seven points for three modes of eye presentation and for three head orientations assumed by E. The three head orientations were straight ahead, facing 15' left, and facing 15' right. The three modes of eye presentation were static, dynamic without crossover, and dynamic with crossover. A static eye presentation was established by E fixating one point and continuing fixation until a judgment was made by S. In the dynamic without crossover condition, E scanned two points on one side of S s head ( a l l to one side of p i n t 4 ) , before fixating on a third point (also to the same side of point 4 or point 4 itself) about which S was asked to make his judgment. Finally, in the dynamic with crossover condition, E again scanned two points before fixating on a third, but in this case each of the two scanned points were on opposite sides of S's head, i.e., dn opposite sides of point 4, and so E had to glance across point 4 before fixating on the point about which S was asked to make a judgment. In the two dynamic conditions, the points scanned and fixated on were also pre-arranged and were presented in a random order with each presentation traversing an equal distance. The experiment followed a repeated measures design and all Ss received all conditions in a counterbalanced order. Ss were nine adults. Of these 5 were male and 4 were female. All Ss were Caucasian and had normal or correctable vision. The laboratory where the experiment was performed had standard room illumination. Results
The frequency of "yes" judgments were counted and tabulated for each eye position in all conditions for every S. The acuity for judgment of the perception of gaze direction was measured by the standard deviation of the frequency distribution. The accuracy of judgments was measured by the constant error of "yes" responses, the differences between the means of the frequency distribution and point 4.
R. DEUTSCH
I
I
&
C. AUERBACH
I
left
front
right
Head Orientation FIG. 1. Acuity of judgment of being looked at as a function of head orientation and mode of presentation. Modes of presentation are static ( s ) , dynamic without crossover ( d x ) , and dynamic with crossover ( d x ) .
Consider first the acuity of judgments, shown in Fig. 1. There was a significant main effect of movement condition on acuity; the order of acuity, ranging from poorest to best, was static, dynamic without crossover, and dynamic with crossover (Ppn16= 7.97, fl < 0.005). There was an effect of head orientation in the direction of better acuity in the frontal condition which approached significance (P2,16= 3.02, p < 0.10). There was no interaction between movement condition and head orientation (P4,16 = 0.89). Consider now the accuracy of judgment, as determined by the constant error, which is shown in Fig. 2. There is an effect of head orientation (P2.16 = 39.40, p < 0.001). The direction is that of no error in the frontal condition and a constant error in the direction of head pointing in the other two conditions. There was no significant effect of movement condition on accuracy (PzVl6= 0.99) nor was there a significant interaction between head orientation and movement condition (F4,16= 0.47).
Discussion Our results both confirm and extend those of Gibson and Pick. W e find, as did Gibson and Pick, constant errors of judgment of direction of the gaze in the direction of head pointing. Our acuity judgments are also numerically similar to those of Gibson and Pick. Moreover, we found that movement of the eyes increases acuity of judgment, but does not alter accuracy, which supplements the Gibson and Pick observations.
EYE MOVEMENT 1N PERCEPTION
479
The results support our initial hypothesis that the two modes of eye presentation-static and dynamic-are different. However, the question of why this is so still remains. Two alternative explanations are possible. First, it could be that people use different criteria for the two modes of eye presentation in judging where another person is looking, i.e., given the same registered eye position for the two modes of eye presentation Ss respond "yes" at further distances away from point 4 in the static than in the dynamic condition. Second, i t is possible that Ss have a better acuity in the dynamic than the static condition because movement provides better information than non-movement. Of course, both explanations may be true. The second experiment was designed to evaluate these alternatives.
Orientation
FIG. 2. Accuracy of judgment of being looked at as a function of head orientation and mode o f presentation. Modes of presentation are static ( s ) , dynamic without crossover ( d x ) , and dynamic with crossover ( d x ) .
EXPERIMENTI1 In order to decide whether the difference between the static and dynamic conditions is due to criterion or information differences, a forced-choice procedure was used, since the forced-choice procedure is relatively free of criterion problems (Green & Swets, 1966). The procedure we used involved having S presented with two eye positions and judging in which of these E was looking straight at him. If any difference between static and dynamic presentations occurred in these conditions then we felt justified in attributing it to informa-
R. DEUTSCH
480
& C.
AUERBACH
tional differences, since the forced-choice procedure requires S to use all the information available to him and is thus criterion free. Method
Exp. I1 utilized the same apparatus as Exp. I but was of a forced-choice design. Each S was given two eye presentations on each trial and was told that in one of them E was visually fixating on a point directly between their eyes. S's task was to judge in which presentation this occurred. Only static and dynamic without crossover conditions were used because the issue was only whether movement provided better information than non-movement. The two conditions were only. -presented in the frontal head orientation because Exp. I showed no significant difference in acuity for the three head orientations. In the static condition, E fixated on point 3 and point 4 in a pre-arranged random order with a 5-sec. interval between fixations. This interval assured that Ss could not view the two static presentations as a single dynamic presentation. In the dynamic without crossover condition, points 3 and 4 were also the points S had to choose from, but before stopping at each of these points, E scanned two other points to the right of point 4. Again, there was a 5-sec. interval between presentations. There were eight Ss of whom 4 were male and 4 were female. All these Ss had normal or correctable vision. '
Results and Discussion
For data from all eight Ss, 99 wrong judgments were made in the staticfront condition and 89 wrong judgments in the dynamic without crossover condition. This difference was not significant, using a t test for paired observations ( t 7 = 1.00). Since no significant differences were found between the static-front and the dynamic without crossover conditions, the data seem to support a criterion hypothesis to explain the differences found in Exp. 1, i.e., that the same internally registered eye position is more likely to be taken to indicate the looker's intention to visually attend to S when a static mode of presentation is offered as compared to when a dynamic presentation is shown. The movement pattern of the eyes, therefore, may be taken as a key to the observer's intention. It should be noted, however, that these results were obtained in a laboratory setting. In a naturalistic situation many other personal and environmental cues probably also signal intent. '
REFERENCES
CLINE,M. G. Perception of where a person is looking.
American lourmi of Psychology, 1967, 80, 41-50. ELLSWORTH,P., CARLSMITH, J., & HENSON.A. The stare as a stimulus to flight in human subjects: a series of field experiments. Journal of Personalib and Social Psychoiogy, 1972, 2 1 , 302-3 11.
EYE MOVEMENT I N PERCEPTION
481
GIBSON, J., & PICK, A. Perception of another person's looking behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 1963, 76, 86-94. GOFFMAN,S. Relations i n public. New York: Basic Books, 1972. GREEN,D., & SWETS,J. Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley. 1966. HEIDER,F , & SIMMEL,M. A study of apparent behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 1944, 57, 243-259. KENDON. A Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologicn, 1967, 26, 22-63. KENDON,A,, & FERBER,A. A description of some human greetings. In R. P. Michael & J. H. Crook (Eds.), Comparative ecology and behavior of prima re^. London: Academic Press, 1973. Pp. 000. OGDEN,A. Looks and glances. Harper's Bazaar, 1961, 84, 109-110. ORTEGAY GASSET,J. Man and people. New York: Norton, 1957. SARTRE,J. P. Being and nothingners. London: Methuen, 1957. SHEPARD,R., & CHIPMAN.S. Second order isomorphism of internal representations: shapes of states. Cognitive Psychology, 1970, 1, 1-17. SIMMEL,G. Sociology of the senses: visual interaction. In R. E. Park & E. W . Burgess (Eds.), Introduction to the science of ~ociology. Chicago: Chicago Univer. Press, 1921. PD. 356-361. TOMKINS,S. S. Affecj, imagery and consciousness. Vol. 11. Negative affects. New York: Springer, 1963. WADA,J. A. Modification of cortically induced responses in brain stem of shift of attention in monkeys. Science, 1961, 133, 40-42. WARDWELL,E. Children's reaction to being watched during success and failure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell Univer., 1960.
Accepted December 27, 1974.
EYE MOVEMENT I N PERCEPTION OF ANOTHER PERSON'S LOOKLNG BEHAVIOR ROBERT
DEUTSCH AND CARL AUERBACH1 Yeshiva University
Summary.-Eye contact is a non-verbal behavior category of major concern in the study of social interaction. Within chis category many behaviors are included which serve a wide range of functions. It was hypothesied that ( 1 ) one of the important stimulus properties that distinguish these behaviors is the movement pattern of the eyes and ( 2 ) that people use different criteria to judge whether another person is looking at them, depending upon whether the other person is displaying a dynamic or static eye presentation. Data are presented ro support these hypotheses.
This study is one of a small number of studies which use psychophysical methods to investigate human visual behavior. The specific hypotheses for this study are derived from the growing body of literature concerning the function of the visual modality in social interaction. W e review this material in order to present the rationale of our hypotheses. Because man is predominantly a visual animal, the use of the visual system has been a major concern in the study of interaction patterns. N o other of man's receptor systems provides such continuous andLabundant information. Philosophers and sociologists have often commented on the fact that eye contact is one of the non-verbal processes people use to establish relationships with one another. Simmel (1921) noted that mutual eye contact is perhaps the most direct and purest reciprocity which can exist between people. Ortega y Gasset (1957) and Ogden ( 1961 ) suggest also that glances constantly remind us that there are others present in the world with intentions and motives of their own. Sartre, analyzing the experience one has when another enters his visual field writes, "when the other looks at me, a basic change occurs in my way of being. I become aware of myself as being an object for another, placed in a situation not defined by me. The other, by looking at me, becomes the limit of my freedom. I realize this experience not by way of cognition, but by a sentiment of uneasiness or discomfort" (Sartre, 1957, p. 236). Psychologists and psychoanalysts have also been concerned with the use of the visual system in interaction. Investigators have demonstrated that both non-human primates and man manifest physiological and behavioral changes when they experience that they are being looked at (e.g., Wada, 1961; Wardwell, 19602). Tomkins (1963) has noted that there exists a universal taboo 'Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Carl Auerbach, Psychology Department, Yeshiva University.. . 55 Fifth Avenue. New York. N. Y. 10003. 'J. S. Shrauger. Self-esteem and reactions to being observed by others. (Unpublished manuscript, State Univer. at Buffalo, 1972)
476
R. DEUTSCH
&
C. AUERBACH
on looking and suggests that this is so because of its direct link with sexuality.
In addition, the visual modality has been hypothesized to play a part in the regulation of conversations (Kendon, 1967), in the announcement of social accessibility (Kendon & Ferber, 1973), in defining a relationship (Goffman, 1972), and in communicating threat and dominance (e.g., Ellsworth, Carlsmith, & Henson, 19723). It seems, then, that there are functionally distinct visual signals. What makes these signals functionally distinct? Our hypothesis is that functionally distinct visual signals possess different physical properties, especially their movement patterns. Two considerations led to this hypothesis. The first is that movement patterns can carry meaning. Heider and Simrnel (1944) used an animated circle and triangle to demonstrate a reliable correspondence between specific movement patterns of the figures and patterns of perceived social relations. These social relations were judged as being "in" the movements of the figures, and this suggests that the essential dimensions of some social stimuli are the movement patterns they possess. The second was that internal representations of external stimuli are isomorphic to the corresponding external stimuli, as was demonstrated by Shepard and Chipman (1970). It seems reasonable, then, that functionally distinct visual signals have different internal representations, and that different movement patterns are the external basis for these internal representations. W e chose to investigate this by examining whether visual signals with different movement patterns could be differentiated on the basis of a psychophysical method. TOdo so we extend a study by Gibson and Pick (1963) on the perception of where another person is looking. Our basic question was whether acuity or accuracy for the judgment of direction of the gaze depend on whether the mode of eye presentation is static or dynamic. Moreover, we chose to investigate the importance of direct eye contact in the frontal plane by having two dynamic conditions, namely, with and without crossover of a point directly between the subject's eyes. The dynamic conditions were subdivided in this way on the basis of suggestions by Gibson and Pick and by Cline (1967) that glancing at a point between the eyes of another person may provide special information that you are looking at that person. Two experiments were performed, the first to investigate our basic hypothesis, and the second to answer some questions arising out of the first. W e report each separately.
EXPERIMENT I The aim of the first experiment is to compare the accuracy and acuity Ss have for the perception of being looked at with a dynamic presentation of the eyes with that for being looked at with a static presentation of the eyes. 'R. Exline & B. Long. Visual behavior in relation to power of position in legitimate and illegitimate power hierarchies. (Unpublished manuscript, Univer. of Delaware, 1971)
EYE MOVEMENT 1N PERCEPTION
Method
The experimental arrangement and procedure are essentially those employed by Gibson and Pick (1963). S was seated directly opposite E at a distance of two meters. Marked on the wall behind S's head were seven p i n t s : a center point (point 4 ) corresponding to a position just above the bridge of SSnose, and three points on either side of the center point, each 10 cm apart (points 1, 2, and 3 on the right side of S's head; points 5, 6, and 7 on the left side of f s head). E, while maintaining a constant, passive facial expression, fixated on one of the seven points in accordance with a pre-arranged random order. Ss were instructed to make a judgment "yes" or "no" after each eye presentation as to whether or not E was visually fixated on a point lying directly between S's eyes. After the judgment was made, E looked away, recorded the judgment and prepared for the next trial. The experiment had the form of a 3 X 3 factorial design. Ss made 25 judgments for each of the seven points for three modes of eye presentation and for three head orientations assumed by E. The three head orientations were straight ahead, facing 15' left, and facing 15' right. The three modes of eye presentation were static, dynamic without crossover, and dynamic with crossover. A static eye presentation was established by E fixating one point and continuing fixation until a judgment was made by S. In the dynamic without crossover condition, E scanned two points on one side of S s head ( a l l to one side of p i n t 4 ) , before fixating on a third point (also to the same side of point 4 or point 4 itself) about which S was asked to make his judgment. Finally, in the dynamic with crossover condition, E again scanned two points before fixating on a third, but in this case each of the two scanned points were on opposite sides of S's head, i.e., dn opposite sides of point 4, and so E had to glance across point 4 before fixating on the point about which S was asked to make a judgment. In the two dynamic conditions, the points scanned and fixated on were also pre-arranged and were presented in a random order with each presentation traversing an equal distance. The experiment followed a repeated measures design and all Ss received all conditions in a counterbalanced order. Ss were nine adults. Of these 5 were male and 4 were female. All Ss were Caucasian and had normal or correctable vision. The laboratory where the experiment was performed had standard room illumination. Results
The frequency of "yes" judgments were counted and tabulated for each eye position in all conditions for every S. The acuity for judgment of the perception of gaze direction was measured by the standard deviation of the frequency distribution. The accuracy of judgments was measured by the constant error of "yes" responses, the differences between the means of the frequency distribution and point 4.
R. DEUTSCH
I
I
&
C. AUERBACH
I
left
front
right
Head Orientation FIG. 1. Acuity of judgment of being looked at as a function of head orientation and mode of presentation. Modes of presentation are static ( s ) , dynamic without crossover ( d x ) , and dynamic with crossover ( d x ) .
Consider first the acuity of judgments, shown in Fig. 1. There was a significant main effect of movement condition on acuity; the order of acuity, ranging from poorest to best, was static, dynamic without crossover, and dynamic with crossover (Ppn16= 7.97, fl < 0.005). There was an effect of head orientation in the direction of better acuity in the frontal condition which approached significance (P2,16= 3.02, p < 0.10). There was no interaction between movement condition and head orientation (P4,16 = 0.89). Consider now the accuracy of judgment, as determined by the constant error, which is shown in Fig. 2. There is an effect of head orientation (P2.16 = 39.40, p < 0.001). The direction is that of no error in the frontal condition and a constant error in the direction of head pointing in the other two conditions. There was no significant effect of movement condition on accuracy (PzVl6= 0.99) nor was there a significant interaction between head orientation and movement condition (F4,16= 0.47).
Discussion Our results both confirm and extend those of Gibson and Pick. W e find, as did Gibson and Pick, constant errors of judgment of direction of the gaze in the direction of head pointing. Our acuity judgments are also numerically similar to those of Gibson and Pick. Moreover, we found that movement of the eyes increases acuity of judgment, but does not alter accuracy, which supplements the Gibson and Pick observations.
EYE MOVEMENT 1N PERCEPTION
479
The results support our initial hypothesis that the two modes of eye presentation-static and dynamic-are different. However, the question of why this is so still remains. Two alternative explanations are possible. First, it could be that people use different criteria for the two modes of eye presentation in judging where another person is looking, i.e., given the same registered eye position for the two modes of eye presentation Ss respond "yes" at further distances away from point 4 in the static than in the dynamic condition. Second, i t is possible that Ss have a better acuity in the dynamic than the static condition because movement provides better information than non-movement. Of course, both explanations may be true. The second experiment was designed to evaluate these alternatives.
Orientation
FIG. 2. Accuracy of judgment of being looked at as a function of head orientation and mode o f presentation. Modes of presentation are static ( s ) , dynamic without crossover ( d x ) , and dynamic with crossover ( d x ) .
EXPERIMENTI1 In order to decide whether the difference between the static and dynamic conditions is due to criterion or information differences, a forced-choice procedure was used, since the forced-choice procedure is relatively free of criterion problems (Green & Swets, 1966). The procedure we used involved having S presented with two eye positions and judging in which of these E was looking straight at him. If any difference between static and dynamic presentations occurred in these conditions then we felt justified in attributing it to informa-
R. DEUTSCH
480
& C.
AUERBACH
tional differences, since the forced-choice procedure requires S to use all the information available to him and is thus criterion free. Method
Exp. I1 utilized the same apparatus as Exp. I but was of a forced-choice design. Each S was given two eye presentations on each trial and was told that in one of them E was visually fixating on a point directly between their eyes. S's task was to judge in which presentation this occurred. Only static and dynamic without crossover conditions were used because the issue was only whether movement provided better information than non-movement. The two conditions were only. -presented in the frontal head orientation because Exp. I showed no significant difference in acuity for the three head orientations. In the static condition, E fixated on point 3 and point 4 in a pre-arranged random order with a 5-sec. interval between fixations. This interval assured that Ss could not view the two static presentations as a single dynamic presentation. In the dynamic without crossover condition, points 3 and 4 were also the points S had to choose from, but before stopping at each of these points, E scanned two other points to the right of point 4. Again, there was a 5-sec. interval between presentations. There were eight Ss of whom 4 were male and 4 were female. All these Ss had normal or correctable vision. '
Results and Discussion
For data from all eight Ss, 99 wrong judgments were made in the staticfront condition and 89 wrong judgments in the dynamic without crossover condition. This difference was not significant, using a t test for paired observations ( t 7 = 1.00). Since no significant differences were found between the static-front and the dynamic without crossover conditions, the data seem to support a criterion hypothesis to explain the differences found in Exp. 1, i.e., that the same internally registered eye position is more likely to be taken to indicate the looker's intention to visually attend to S when a static mode of presentation is offered as compared to when a dynamic presentation is shown. The movement pattern of the eyes, therefore, may be taken as a key to the observer's intention. It should be noted, however, that these results were obtained in a laboratory setting. In a naturalistic situation many other personal and environmental cues probably also signal intent. '
REFERENCES
CLINE,M. G. Perception of where a person is looking.
American lourmi of Psychology, 1967, 80, 41-50. ELLSWORTH,P., CARLSMITH, J., & HENSON.A. The stare as a stimulus to flight in human subjects: a series of field experiments. Journal of Personalib and Social Psychoiogy, 1972, 2 1 , 302-3 11.
EYE MOVEMENT I N PERCEPTION
481
GIBSON, J., & PICK, A. Perception of another person's looking behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 1963, 76, 86-94. GOFFMAN,S. Relations i n public. New York: Basic Books, 1972. GREEN,D., & SWETS,J. Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley. 1966. HEIDER,F , & SIMMEL,M. A study of apparent behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 1944, 57, 243-259. KENDON. A Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologicn, 1967, 26, 22-63. KENDON,A,, & FERBER,A. A description of some human greetings. In R. P. Michael & J. H. Crook (Eds.), Comparative ecology and behavior of prima re^. London: Academic Press, 1973. Pp. 000. OGDEN,A. Looks and glances. Harper's Bazaar, 1961, 84, 109-110. ORTEGAY GASSET,J. Man and people. New York: Norton, 1957. SARTRE,J. P. Being and nothingners. London: Methuen, 1957. SHEPARD,R., & CHIPMAN.S. Second order isomorphism of internal representations: shapes of states. Cognitive Psychology, 1970, 1, 1-17. SIMMEL,G. Sociology of the senses: visual interaction. In R. E. Park & E. W . Burgess (Eds.), Introduction to the science of ~ociology. Chicago: Chicago Univer. Press, 1921. PD. 356-361. TOMKINS,S. S. Affecj, imagery and consciousness. Vol. 11. Negative affects. New York: Springer, 1963. WADA,J. A. Modification of cortically induced responses in brain stem of shift of attention in monkeys. Science, 1961, 133, 40-42. WARDWELL,E. Children's reaction to being watched during success and failure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell Univer., 1960.
Accepted December 27, 1974.
