Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Learning under your gaze: the mediating role of affective arousal between perceived direct gaze and memory performance

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that cognitive performance can be affected by the presence of an observer and self-directed gaze. We investigated whether the effect of gaze direction (direct vs. downcast) on verbal memory is mediated by autonomic arousal. Male participants responded with enhanced affective arousal to both male and female storytellers’ direct gaze which, according to a path analysis, was negatively associated with the performance. On the other hand, parallel to this arousal-mediated effect, males’ performance was affected by another process impacting the performance positively and suggested to be related to effort allocation on the task. The effect of this process was observed only when the storyteller was a male. The participants remembered more details from a story told by a male with a direct vs. downcast gaze. The effect of gaze direction on performance was the opposite for female storytellers, which was explained by the arousal-mediated process. Surprisingly, these results were restricted to male participants only and no effects of gaze were observed among female participants. We also investigated whether the participants’ belief of being seen or not (through an electronic window) by the storyteller influenced the memory and arousal, but this manipulation had no effect on the results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    The means (SDs) and ranges of the raw scores for each story were as follows: A: 23.2 (7.2), 8–37; B: 21.9 (5.9), 11–39; C: 25.9 (7.5), 7–39; D: 24.0 (6.2), 10–36. The story C was significantly easier than the story A (t(40) = −2.52, p = 0.016) and the story B (t(40) = −3.73, p = 0.001). Story B was also significantly more difficult than story D (t(40) = −2.18, p = 0.035).

  2. 2.

    The overall indices of model fit, based on the sum of these two Χ 2 values, also indicated a good fit (Χ 2 = 0.92, df = 4, p = 0.915; RMSEA = 0.000; CFI = 1.00; SRMR = 0.01, Hu & Bentler, 1999).

References

  1. Abbey, A., & Melby, C. (1986). The effects of nonverbal cues on gender differences in perceptions of sexual intent. Sex Roles, 15(5–6), 283–298. doi:10.1007/BF00288318.

  2. Aiello, J. R., & Douthitt, E. A. (2001). Social facilitation from Triplett to electronic performance monitoring. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5(3), 163–180. doi:10.1037//1089-2699.5.3.163.

  3. Anelli, F., Borghi, A. M., & Nicoletti, R. (2012). Grasping the pain: motor resonance with dangerous affordances. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(4), 1627–1639. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2012.09.001.

  4. Argyle, D., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28(3), 289–304. doi:10.2307/2786027.

  5. Bente, G., Donaghy, W. C., & Suwelack, D. (1998). Sex differences in body movement and visual attention: an integrated analysis of movement and gaze in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22(1), 31–58.

  6. Böckler, A., van der Wel, R. P. R. D., & Welsh, T. N. (2014). Catching eyes: effects of social and nonsocial cues on attention capture. Psychological Science, 25, 720–727. doi:10.1177/0956797613516147.

  7. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

  8. Bond, C. F., & Titus, L. J. (1983). Social facilitation: a meta-analysis of 241 studies. Psychological Bulletin, 94(2), 265–292. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.94.2.265.

  9. Börger, N., van Der Meere, J., Ronner, A., Alberts, E., Geuze, R., & Bogte, H. (1999). Heart rate variability and sustained attention in ADHD children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27(1), 25–33. doi:10.1023/A:1022610306984.

  10. Boucsein, W. (2012). Electrodermal activity (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

  11. Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2010). Nonverbal communication. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

  12. Conty, L., Gimmig, D., Belletier, C., George, N., & Huguet, P. (2010a). The cost of being watched: stroop interference increases under concomitant eye contact. Cognition, 115(1), 133–139. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.12.005.

  13. Conty, L., Russo, M., Loehr, V., Hugueville, L., Barbu, S., Huguet, P., & George, N. (2010b). The mere perception of eye contact increases arousal during a word-spelling task. Social Neuroscience, 5(2), 171–186. doi:10.1080/17470910903227507.

  14. Conty, L., Tijus, C., Hugueville, L., Coelho, E., & George, N. (2006). Searching for asymmetries in the detection of gaze contact versus averted gaze under different head views: a behavioural study. Spatial Vision, 19(6), 529–546. doi:10.1163/156856806779194026.

  15. Coull, J. T. (1998). Neural correlates of attention and arousal: insights from electrophysiology, functional neuroimaging and psychopharmacology. Progress in Neurobiology, 55(4), 343–361. doi:10.1016/S0301-0082(98)00011-2.

  16. Doi, H., Ueda, K., & Shinohara, K. (2009). Neural correlates of the stare-in-the-crowd effect. Neuropsychologia, 47(4), 1053–1060. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.11.004.

  17. Eysenck, M. W. (1982). Attention and arousal: Cognition and performance. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

  18. Falck‐Ytter, T., Carlström, C., & Johansson, M. (2014). Eye contact modulates cognitive processing differently in children with autism. Child Development. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12273.

  19. Figner, B., & Murphy, R. O. (2011). Using skin conductance in judgment and decision making research. In M. Schulte-Mecklenbeck, A. Kuehberger, & R. Ranyard (Eds.), A handbook of process tracing methods for decision research. New York: Psychology Press.

  20. Fry, R., & Smith, G. F. (1975). The effects of feedback and eye contact on performance of a digit-coding task. The Journal of Social Psychology, 96, 145–146. doi:10.1080/00224545.1975.9923275.

  21. Fullwood, C., & Doherty-Sneddon, G. (2006). Effect of gazing at the camera during a video link on recall. Applied Ergonomics, 37(2), 167–175. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2005.05.003.

  22. Galantucci, B., Fowler, C. A., & Turvey, M. T. (2006). The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 361–377. doi:10.3758/bf03193857.

  23. Gale, A., Lucas, B., Nissim, R., & Harpham, B. (1972). Some EEG correlates of face-to-face contact. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11(4), 326–332. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1972.tb00822.x.

  24. Gale, A., Spratt, G., Chapman, A. J., & Smallbone, A. (1975). EEG correlates of eye contact and interpersonal distance. Biological Psychology, 3(4), 237–245. doi:10.1016/0301-0511(75)90023-X.

  25. Glenberg, A., Schroeder, J., & Robertson, D. (1998). Averting the gaze disengages the environment and facilitates remembering. Memory & Cognition, 26(4), 651–658. doi:10.3758/BF03211385.

  26. Goldfarb, L. P., Plante, T. G., Brentar, J. T., & DliGregorio, M. (1995). Administering the digit span subtest of the WISC-III: should the examiner make eye contact or not? Assessment, 2(4), 313–318.

  27. Govern, J. M., & Marsch, L. A. (2001). Development and validation of the situational self-awareness scale. Consciousness and Cognition, 10(3), 366–378. doi:10.1006/ccog.2001.0506.

  28. Helminen, T. M., Kaasinen, S. M., & Hietanen, J. K. (2011). Eye contact and arousal: the effects of stimulus duration. Biological Psychology, 88(1), 124–130. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.07.002.

  29. Henley, N. M. (1995). Body politics revisited: What do we know today. In P. H. Kalbfleisch & M. J. Cody (Eds.), Gender, power, and communication in human relationships (pp. 27–61). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

  30. Hietanen, J. K., Leppänen, J. M., Peltola, M. J., Linna-aho, K., & Ruuhiala, H. J. (2008). Seeing direct and averted gaze activates the approach–avoidance motivational brain systems. Neuropsychologia, 46(9), 2423–2430. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.02.029.

  31. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849–937. doi:10.1017/s0140525x01000103.

  32. Hood, B. M., Macrae, C. N., Cole-Davies, V., & Dias, M. (2003). Eye remember you: the effects of gaze direction on face recognition in children and adults. Developmental Science, 6(1), 67–71. doi:10.1111/1467-7687.00256.

  33. Howells, F. M., Stein, D. J., & Russell, V. A. (2010). Perceived mental effort correlates with changes in tonic arousal during attentional tasks. Behavioral and Brain Functions,. doi:10.1186/1744-9081-6-39.

  34. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.

  35. Karremans, J. C., Verwijmeren, T., Pronk, T. M., & Reitsma, M. (2009). Interacting with women can impair men’s cognitive functioning. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 1041–1044. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.05.004.

  36. Kelley, D. H., & Gorham, J. (1988). Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communication Education, 37(3), 198–207. doi:10.1080/03634528809378719.

  37. Kendon, A., & Cook, M. (1969). The consistency of gaze patterns in social interaction. British Journal of Psychology, 60(4), 481–494. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1969.tb01222.x.

  38. Kleinke, C. L. (1986). Gaze and eye contact: a research review. Psychological Bulletin, 100(1), 78–100. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.100.1.78.

  39. Kleinke, C. L., & Pohlen, P. D. (1971). Affective and emotional responses as a function of other person’s gaze and cooperativeness in a two-person game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(3), 308–313. doi:10.1037/h0030600.

  40. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

  41. Kushnir, T. (1981). The status of arousal in recent social facilitation literature: a review and evaluation of assumptions implied by the current research model. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 9(2), 185–191. doi:10.2224/sbp.1981.9.2.185.

  42. Laine, C. M., Spitler, K. M., Mosher, C. P., & Gothard, K. M. (2009). Behavioral triggers of skin conductance responses and their neural correlates in the primate amygdala. Journal of Neurophysiology, 101, 1749–1754. doi:10.1152/jn.91110.2008.

  43. Lang, P. J., & Bradley, M. M. (2010). Emotion and the motivational brain. Biological Psychology, 84(3), 437–450. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2009.10.007.

  44. Macrae, C. N., Hood, B. M., Milne, A. B., Rowe, A. C., & Mason, M. F. (2002). Are you looking at me? Eye gaze and person perception. Psychological Science, 13(5), 460–464. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00481.

  45. Markson, L., & Paterson, K. B. (2009). Effects of gaze-aversion on visual-spatial imagination. British Journal of Psychology, 100(3), 553–563. doi:10.1348/000712608X371762.

  46. Mojzisch, A., Schilbach, L., Helmert, J. R., Pannasch, S., Velichkovsky, B. M., & Vogeley, K. (2006). The effects of self-involvement on attention, arousal, and facial expression during social interaction with virtual others: a psychophysiological study. Social Neuroscience, 1(3–4), 184–195. doi:10.1080/17470910600985621.

  47. Mulac, A., Studley, L. B., Wiemann, J. M., & Bradac, J. J. (1987). Male/female gaze in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads gender-linked differences and mutual influence. Human Communication Research, 13(3), 323–343. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1987.tb00108.x.

  48. Myllyneva, A., & Hietanen, J. K. (2015). There is more to eye contact than meets the eye. Cognition, 134, 100–109. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.09.011.

  49. Nauts, S., Metzmacher, M., Verwijmeren, T., Rommeswinkel, V., & Karremans, J. C. (2012). The mere anticipation of an interaction with a woman can impair men’s cognitive performance. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(4), 1051–1056. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9860-z.

  50. Nemeth, D., Turcsik, A. B., Farkas, G., & Janacsek, K. (2013). Social communication impairs working-memory performance. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 20(3), 211–214. doi:10.1080/09084282.2012.685134.

  51. Nichols, K. A., & Champness, B. G. (1971). Eye gaze and the GSR. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7(6), 623–626.

  52. Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632. doi:10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y.

  53. Otteson, J. P., & Otteson, C. R. (1980). Effect of teacher’s gaze on children’s story recall. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 50(1), 35–42. doi:10.2466/pms.1980.50.1.35.

  54. Palanica, A., & Itier, R. J. (2012). Attention capture by direct gaze is robust to context and task demands. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36, 123–134. doi:10.1007/s10919-011-0128-z.

  55. Patterson, M. L. (1976). An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy. Psychological Review, 83(3), 235–245. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.83.3.235.

  56. Pönkänen, L. M., Peltola, M. J., & Hietanen, J. K. (2011). The observer observed: frontal EEG asymmetry and autonomic responses differentiate between another person’s direct and averted gaze when the face is seen live. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 82(2), 180–187. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.08.006.

  57. Porter, G., Hood, B. M., Troscianko, T., & Macrae, C. N. (2006). Females, but not males, show greater pupillary response to direct- than deviated-gaze faces. Perception, 35(8), 1129–1136. doi:10.1068/p5438.

  58. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227. doi:10.1080/00273170701341316.

  59. Ren, D., Zhou, H., & Fu, X. (2009). A deeper look at gender difference in multitasking: Gender-specific mechanism of cognitive control. Fifth International Conference on Natural Computation, 5, 13–17, Tianjin, China: IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ICNC.2009.542.

  60. Rothman, K. J. (1990). No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology, 1(1), 43–46. doi:10.1097/00001648-199001000-00010.

  61. Schneier, F. R., Rodebaugh, T. L., Blanco, C., Lewin, H., & Liebowitz, M. R. (2011). Fear and avoidance of eye contact in social anxiety disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 52(1), 81–87. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2010.04.006.

  62. Schrammel, F., Pannasch, S., Graupner, S. T., Mojzisch, A., & Velichkovsky, B. M. (2009). Virtual friend or threat? The effects of facial expression and gaze interaction on psychophysiological responses and emotional experience. Psychophysiology, 46(5), 922–931. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00831.x.

  63. Schulte-Rüther, M., Markowitsch, H. J., Fink, G. R., & Piefke, M. (2007). Mirror neuron and theory of mind mechanisms involved in face-to-face interactions: a functional magnetic resonance imaging approach to empathy. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(8), 1354–1372. doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.8.1354.

  64. Segerstrom, S. C., & Nes, L. S. (2007). Heart rate variability reflects self-regulatory strength, effort, and fatigue. Psychological Science, 18(3), 275–281. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01888.x.

  65. Senju, A., & Hasegawa, T. (2005). Direct gaze captures visuospatial attention. Visual Cognition, 12(1), 127–144. doi:10.1080/13506280444000157.

  66. Senju, A., Hasegawa, T., & Tojo, Y. (2005). Does perceived direct gaze boost detection in adults and children with and without autism? The stare-in-the-crowd effect revisited? Visual Cognition, 12(8), 1474–1496. doi:10.1080/13506280444000797.

  67. Senju, A., & Johnson, M. H. (2009). The eye contact effect: mechanisms and development. Trends in cognitive sciences, 13(3), 127–134. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.11.009.

  68. Sherwood, J. V. (1987). Facilitative effects of gaze upon learning. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64(3c), 1275–1278. doi:10.2466/pms.1987.64.3c.1275.

  69. Silvia, P. J., & Gendolla, G. H. E. (2001). On introspection and self-perception: does self-focused attention enable accurate self-knowledge? Review of General Psychology, 5(3), 241–269. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.3.241.

  70. Soussignan, R., Chadwick, M., Philip, L., Conty, L., Dezecache, G., & Grèzes, J. (2013). Self-relevance appraisal of gaze direction and dynamic facial expressions: effects on facial electromyographic and autonomic reactions. Emotion, 13(2), 330–337. doi:10.1037/a0029892.

  71. Uziel, L. (2007). Individual differences in the social facilitation effect: a review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(3), 579–601. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.06.008.

  72. Von Grünau, M., & Anston, C. (1995). The detection of gaze direction: a stare-in-the-crowd effect. Perception, 24(11), 1297–1313. doi:10.1068/p241297.

  73. Vuilleumier, P., George, N., Lister, V., Armony, J., & Driver, J. (2005). Effects of perceived mutual gaze and gender on face processing and recognition memory. Visual Cognition, 12(1), 85–101. doi:10.1080/13506280444000120.

  74. Wegner, D. M., & Giuliano, T. (1980). Arousal-induced attention to self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(5), 719–726. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.5.719.

  75. Whitelock, D., & Scanlon, E. (1998). The roles of gaze, gesture and gender in CSCL. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 14(2), 158–165. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2729.1998.1420158.x.

  76. Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149(3681), 269–274. doi:10.1126/science.149.3681.269.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Essi Laitinen, Jonne Hietanen and Aki Myllyneva for their assistance in data collection. This work was supported by National Doctoral Programme of Psychology (T.M.H) and the Academy of Finland (project # 266187 to J.K.H).

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.

Ethical standards

Informed, written consent was obtained from each participant in the beginning of the experimental procedure. The ethical statement for the study was obtained from the Tampere Area Ethical Review Board, and the study has therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Author information

Correspondence to Terhi M. Helminen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Helminen, T.M., Pasanen, T.P. & Hietanen, J.K. Learning under your gaze: the mediating role of affective arousal between perceived direct gaze and memory performance. Psychological Research 80, 159–171 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0649-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Memory Performance
  • Male Participant
  • Skin Conductance
  • Belief Condition
  • Skin Conductance Response