Abstract
Direct eye gaze is a potent stimulus in social interactions and is often associated with interest and approach orientation. Yet, there is remarkable variability in the range of gaze lines that people accept as being direct. A measure that is frequently used to quantify the range of gaze angles within which an observer assumes mutual gaze is the cone of direct gaze (CoDG). While individual differences in CoDG have often been examined, studies that systematically investigate the stability of an observers' CoDG over time are scarce. In two experiments, we measured the CoDG using an established paradigm and repeated the measurement after 5 min and/or after 1 week. We found high inter-individual variation, but high agreement within participants (ICCs between 0.649 and 0.855). We conclude that the CoDG can be seen as a rather stable measure, much like a personality trait.
Highlights
Knowing whether another person is making eye contact or not is a pivotal skill for social interactions (Argyle and Cook, 1976; Kleinke, 1986; Baron-Cohen, 1995)
More interestingly, our data suggest that intra-individually, the cone of direct gaze (CoDG) is stable across different time points: We found good to very good consistency as measured with intra-class coefficients
In contrast to previous studies, we found no relation between the CoDG and traits of social anxiety (SAD) or autism (ASD), as measured with brief screening questionnaires (SPIN and AQk)
Summary
Knowing whether another person is making eye contact or not is a pivotal skill for social interactions (Argyle and Cook, 1976; Kleinke, 1986; Baron-Cohen, 1995). By making eye contact with another person, we signal that we are attending to him or her and that we might want to start a conversation. For a potential addressee it is essential to know whether he or she is being looked at or not (cf Hamilton, 2016) As warrants such an important skill, human beings can generally detect direct gaze rather accurately (e.g., Gibson and Pick, 1963), but there is a considerable range of gaze directions wherein people feel looked at (e.g., Gamer and Hecht, 2007; Lobmaier et al, 2008; Harbort et al, 2017; Balsdon and Clifford, 2018). This lead Gamer and Hecht (2007) to use the metaphor of a cone of gaze rather than that of a ray as assumed in earlier studies (e.g., Gale and Monk, 2000; Symons et al, 2004)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
