Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38195808›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

The semantics of gaze in person perception: a novel qualitative-quantitative approach.

Eva Landmann, Christina Breil, Lynn Huestegge, Anne Böckler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Eva LandmannDepartment of Psychology, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg (JMU), 97070, Würzburg, Germany. eva.landmann@uni-wuerzburg.de.
Christina BreilDepartment of Psychology, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg (JMU), 97070, Würzburg, Germany.
Lynn Huestegge *Department of Psychology, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg (JMU), 97070, Würzburg, Germany.
Anne Böckler *Department of Psychology, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg (JMU), 97070, Würzburg, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) BO 4962/1-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interpreting gaze behavior is essential in evaluating interaction partners, yet the 'semantics of gaze' in dynamic interactions are still poorly understood. We aimed to comprehensively investigate effects of gaze behavior patterns in different conversation contexts, using a two-step, qualitative-quantitative procedure. Participants watched video clips of single persons listening to autobiographic narrations by another (invisible) person. The listener's gaze behavior was manipulated in terms of gaze direction, frequency and direction of gaze shifts, and blink frequency; emotional context was manipulated through the valence of the narration (neutral/negative). In Experiment 1 (qualitative-exploratory), participants freely described which states and traits they attributed to the listener in each condition, allowing us to identify relevant aspects of person perception and to construct distinct rating scales that were implemented in Experiment 2 (quantitative-confirmatory). Results revealed systematic and differential meanings ascribed to the listener's gaze behavior. For example, rapid blinking and fast gaze shifts were rated more negatively (e.g., restless and unnatural) than slower gaze behavior; downward gaze was evaluated more favorably (e.g., empathetic) than other gaze aversion types, especially in the emotionally negative context. Overall, our study contributes to a more systematic understanding of flexible gaze semantics in social interaction.

Indexed as

CommunicationSemanticsEmotionsHabitsHumansPerception

Identifiers

PMID38195808
PMCPMC10776783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.