Looking, smiling, laughing, and moving in restaurants: Sex and age differences

Adams, Robert M.; Kirkevold, Barbara C.

doi:10.1007/bf01135609

Cited by 27 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They concluded that "many factors influence gazing at all ages, but the prepotency of these factors varies with age" (p. 404). Adams and Kirkevold (1978) observed no differences in gazing behavior at a fast food restaurant by people in four age groups (under 12 years. 12-17 years, 18-22 years, over 22 years).…”

Section: Personal Factorsmentioning

confidence: 79%

Gaze and eye contact: A research review.

Kleinke¹

1986

Psychological Bulletin

1,218

809

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on gaze and eye contact was organized within the framework of Patterson's (1982) sequential functional model of nonverbal exchange. Studies were reviewed showing how gaze functions to (a) provide information, (b) regulate interaction, (c) express intimacy, (d) exercise social control, and (e) facilitate service and task goals. Research was also summarized that describes personal, experiential, relational, and situational antecedents of gaze and reactions to gaze. Directions were given for a functional analysis of the relation between gaze and physiological responses. Attribution theories were integrated into the sequential model for making predictions about people's perceptions of their own gazing behavior and the gazing behavior of others. Data on people's accuracy in reporting their own and others' gaze were presented and integrated with related findings in attribution research. The sequential model was used to analyze research studies measuring the interaction between gaze and personal and contextual variables. Methodological and measurement issues were discussed and directions were outlined for future research. These lovely lamps, these windows of the soul. (Du Bartas) 1 The eyes have one language everywhere. (George Herbert) There are often voice and words in a silent look. (Ovid) For eyes can speak and eyes can understand. (Chapman)

show abstract

Section: Personal Factorsmentioning

confidence: 79%

Gaze and eye contact: A research review.

Kleinke¹

1986

Psychological Bulletin

1,218

809

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, they laugh to appease others (e.g., R.M. Adams & Kirkevold, 1978; Deacon, 1997; Dovidio, Brown, Heltman, Ellyson, & Keating, 1988) or to indicate sexual interest (Dunbar, 1996; Grammer, 1990). In general, many communicative behaviors in primates have multiple meanings, depending on their context (de Waal, 2003).…”

Section: Evaluating the Natural-kind View Of Emotionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Emotions Natural Kinds?

Barrett

2006

Perspect Psychol Sci

1,392

1,163

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laypeople and scientists alike believe that they know anger, or sadness, or fear, when they see it. These emotions and a few others are presumed to have specific causal mechanisms in the brain and properties that are observable (on the face, in the voice, in the body, or in experience)-that is, they are assumed to be natural kinds. If a given emotion is a natural kind and can be identified objectively, then it is possible to make discoveries about that emotion. Indeed, the scientific study of emotion is founded on this assumption. In this article, I review the accumulating empirical evidence that is inconsistent with the view that there are kinds of emotion with boundaries that are carved in nature. I then consider what moving beyond a natural-kind view might mean for the scientific understanding of emotion.

show abstract

“…There are strong gender differences in laughter patterns. In the above analysis of 1,200 instances of laughter (Provine, ), both sexes laughed a lot, but in cross‐gender conversations females laughed 126% more than their male counterparts, meaning that women were the leading laughers, whereas males were the leading laugh getters (also see Foot and Chapman, ; Duncan and Fiske, ; Adams and Kirkevold, ). Cross‐cultural and developmental studies support these findings.…”

Section: Sociality Of Laughtermentioning

confidence: 99%

Laughter as a scientific problem: An adventure in sidewalk neuroscience

Provine

2015

J of Comparative Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laughter is a stereotyped, innate, human play vocalization that provides an ideal simple system for neurobehavioral analyses of the sort usually associated with such animal models as walking, wing-flapping, and bird song. Laughter research is in its early stages, where the frontiers are near and accessible to simple observational procedures termed "sidewalk neuroscience." The basic, nontechnical approach of describing the act of laughter and when humans do it has revealed a variety of phenomena of social and neurological significance. Findings include the acoustic structure of laughter, the minimal voluntary control of laughter, contagiousness, the "punctuation effect" that describes the placement of laughter in conversation, the dominance of speech over laughter, the role of breath control in the evolution of speech, the evolutionary trajectory of laughter in primates, and the role of laughter in human matching and mating. If one knows where to look and how to see, advances in neuroscience are accessible to anyone and require minimal resources.

show abstract

Looking, smiling, laughing, and moving in restaurants: Sex and age differences

Cited by 27 publications

References 5 publications

Gaze and eye contact: A research review.

Gaze and eye contact: A research review.

Are Emotions Natural Kinds?

Laughter as a scientific problem: An adventure in sidewalk neuroscience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About