Staring and approach: An interpretation of the stare as a nonspecific activator.

Abstract

A field experiment was performed to test the hypothesis that the stare may function as a stimulus either to approach or to avoidance, depending on the context. In a. 2X2 bystander intervention paradigm, the nature of the victim's plight and the appropriate remedy were either clear or ambiguous, and the victim either stared at the subject or did not. The hypothesis was confirmed: There was no main effect for staring. More help was elicited in the clear conditions than in the ambiguous conditions, but the differences between these two conditions only reached significance when the victim stared. In a series of field experiments, Ellsworth, Carlsmith, and Henson (1972) found that people tried to escape from a steady direct stare. Half of the subjects were exposed to a continuous stare, the rest merely to a fleeting glance; those who were stared at moved away from the experimenter significantly faster than the others. One interpretation of this finding is that the stare serves as a signal of threat for humans, just as it does for other primates (Chevalier-Skolnikoff, 1972; van Hooff, 1967), and the tendency to flee is a relatively automatic response triggered or released by the stare. While this interpretation is consistent with ethological theory (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1970) and with some cultural stereotypes, it is at odds with a number of other strong culturally stereotyped beliefs about the stare. At least in this culture, a direct gaze is also believed to convey openness and candor and to elicit feelings of intimacy and trust. It is part of the occupational folklore of salesmen, trial attorneys, and those in other persuasive professions that a steady, direct gaze increases the probability that the audience will trust the speaker and accept his message. Insofar as this superstition is accurate, it casts doubt