1980
DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1980.9924274
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of Eye Contact and Distance on the Verbal Reinforcement of Attitude

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

1986
1986
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Snyder, Grether, & Keller, 1974), pedestrians were more likely to help a gazing experimenter pick up dropped coins (Valentine, 1980) and dropped questionnaires (Goldman & Fordyce, 1983), and bystanders were more likely to help an injured gazing jogger (Shotland & Johnson, 1978). Research participants were more willing to change their attitude expression when they received social reinforcement from a gazing rather than nongazing interviewer (Goldman, 1980).…”
Section: Functional Classificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Snyder, Grether, & Keller, 1974), pedestrians were more likely to help a gazing experimenter pick up dropped coins (Valentine, 1980) and dropped questionnaires (Goldman & Fordyce, 1983), and bystanders were more likely to help an injured gazing jogger (Shotland & Johnson, 1978). Research participants were more willing to change their attitude expression when they received social reinforcement from a gazing rather than nongazing interviewer (Goldman, 1980).…”
Section: Functional Classificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hall (1969) has identified four interpersonal distance zones characteristic of U.S. culture: intimate, from contact to 18 inches; personal, from 1.5 to 4 feet; social, from 4 to 12 feet; and public (lectures and speeches), at greater than 12 feet. In this society, individuals seem to become more uncomfortable when others stand too close, rather than too far away (Goldman, 1980). The feelings and reactions associated with a violation of personal space may range from flight or withdrawal to anger or conflict (Baron & Needel, 1980; Pearson, 1985).…”
Section: Communication Stylesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A wealth of research confirms that the dynamics of head orientation and gaze contain critical information that determines in many ways a perceiver's behavior and the course a communication takes. Social gaze is a disambiguating cue in referential communication ( Hanna & Brennan, 2007 ); informs social bonding, trust building, and rapport ( Wolf, Launay, & Dunbar, 2016 ); moderates the perception of facial expressions of emotion ( Adams Jr & Kleck, 2005 ); provides signals to negotiate turn taking ( Duncan, 1972 ); affects the efficiency of both verbal and nonverbal communication between social partners in many other ways (e.g., Goldman, 1980 ); and elicits direct and immediate, inescapable affective responses ( Hietanen, 2018 ). Kleinke (1986) , in a very comprehensive review, provides many more examples that illustrate the richness of mutual gaze behavior and the various functions it serves in communication and social interaction.…”
Section: The Dynamics Of Mutual Gazementioning
confidence: 99%