The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Visual behavior in a dyad as affected by interview content and sex of respondent.
Abstract
Hypotheses concerning effects of content, concealment instructions, and sex of partner upon willingness to engage in mutual glances were tested in 2X2X2X2 factorial design. 40 male and 40 female students (Ss) were interviewed by 1 graduate student of each sex (E). Interviewers gazed steadily at S while asking very personal or innocuous questions. Mutual glances were recorded and results showed: (a) Ss, when speaking, looked at E significantly more during the innocuous interview; (b) female Ss looked significantly more regardless of E's sex; (c) only sex differences were found in postexperimental discussion; and (d) female Ss were more affectionate and inclusion oriented. Results are discussed in terms of motives to conceal, cathect, and/or reduce distractions. Mediating effects of personality variables are suggested. This study reports results from an investigation of factors which affect visual interaction, i.e., looks and glances, in groups and dyads. Cherry (1957) points out that there is no communication without system of signs, and that sign can be denned as any physical event used in communication, i.e., a natural or conventional motion used instead of words to convey information [p. 7]. Since looking at or away from another is natural motion and since people characteristically read meanings into such fixations or avoidances, we assume that visual interaction is form of nonverbal communication. There is evidence that visual interaction will lend itself to study of nonverbal com
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957) · Cited by 9,433
Experimental Design in Psychological Research
(2002) · Foundations of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.7551/mitpress/3080.003.0011 · Cited by 2,465
FIRO, A Three-Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior
Schutz, W. C. (1958) · Journal of Symbolic Logic · Cited by 720
Cherry, C., & Davis, P. J. (1966) · Cited by 601
Perception of Another Person's Looking Behavior
Gibson, J. J., & Pick, A. D. (1963) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1419779 · Cited by 396
Exline, R. V. (1963) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1963.tb01836.x · Cited by 288
Self-citation
Cited by
Gaze and eye contact: a research review
Kleinke, C. L. (1986) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.100.1.78 · Cited by 1,455
Self-disclosure: A literature review.
Cozby, P. C. (1973) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0033950 · Cited by 1,252
Rubin, Z. (1970) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0029841 · Cited by 1,248
Head and Body Cues in the Judgment of Emotion: A Reformulation
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1967) · Perceptual and Motor Skills · doi:10.1177/003151256702400305 · Cited by 279
Gaze aversion: A response to cognitive or social difficulty?
Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Phelps, F. G. (2005) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03195338 · Cited by 279
Metadata
- Authors
- Exline, R., Gray, D., & Schuette, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 1965-03
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 201-209
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2113185734
- Cited by
- 309
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 24.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Visual behavior in a dyad as affected by interview content and sex of respondent. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/h0021865
- The paper
- Exline, R., Gray, D., & Schuette, D. (1965). Visual behavior in a dyad as affected by interview content and sex of respondent. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021865
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.