Abstract
It was hypothesized that experimenter gaze would lead to increased compliancewith a legitimate request and decreased compliance with an illegitimate request. Subjects (95 males, 73 females) in Experiment 1 gave more dimes for a phone call to gazing rather than non-gazing female experimenters. Experimenter gaze did not influence dimes given by subjects for a candy bar. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1 with a different legitimacy manipulation and with an additional treatment including both gaze and touch. A significant interaction showed that subjects (56 males, 58 females) gave more dimes for a legitimate request (phone call) when they received gaze alone or gaze and touch from a female experimenter. Subjects gave more dimes for an illegitimate request (buying gum) when the experimenter did not gaze at or touch them.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Reference Notes
Ernest, R.C., & Cooper, R.E. “Hey mister, do you have any change?”: Two real-world studies of proxemic effects on compliance with a mundane request. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, 1974.
Kleinke, C.L.Influence of confederate's gaze and reported feelings on subjects' heart-rates, visual behavior, and affective responses in a “biofeedback” experiment. Unpublished manuscript, Wellesley College, 1979.
Reis, H.T., & Halek, D.On the role of arousal in responses to a staring individual. Unpublished manuscript, University of Rochester, 1977.
Reis, H.T., & Werner, A.Some inter- and intrapersonal consequences of eye contact. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia, 1974.
References
Baron, R.A. Invasions of personal space and helping: Mediating effects of invader's apparent need.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1978,14, 304–312.
Castellan, N.J. On the partitioning of contingency tables.Psychological Bulletin, 1965,64, 330–338.
Cunningham, M.R. Weather, mood, and helping behavior: Quasi experiments with the sunshine samaritan.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979,37, 1947–1956.
Ellsworth, P.C., & Carlsmith, J.M. Effects of eye contact and verbal content on affective responses to a dyadic interaction.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968,10, 15–20.
Ellsworth, P.C., Carlsmith, J.M., & Henson, A. The stare as a stimulus to flight in human subjects: A series of field experiments.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972,21, 302–311.
Ellsworth, P.C., & Langer, E.J. Staring and approach: An interpretation of the stare as a non-specific activator.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976,33, 117–122.
Hassett, J.A primer of psychophysiology. San Francisco, W.H. Freeman, 1978.
Kahn, A., & McGaughey, T.A. Distance and liking: When moving close produces increased liking.Sociometry, 1977,40, 138–144.
Kleinke, C.L. Compliance to requests made by gazing and touching experimenters in field settings.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1977,13, 218–223.(a)
Kleinke, C.L. Effects of dress on compliance to requests in a field setting.Journal of Social Psychology, 1977,101, 223–224.(b)
Kleinke, C.L., & Singer, D.A. Influence of gaze on compliance with demanding and conciliatory requests in a field setting.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1979,5, 386–390.
Kleinke, C.L., Staneski, R.A., & Berger, D.E. Evaluation of an interviewer as a function of interviewer gaze, reinforcement of subject gaze, and interviewer attractiveness.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,31, 115–122.
Kleinke, C.L., Staneksi, R.A., & Pipp, S.L. Effects of gaze, distance, and attractiveness on males' first impressions of females.Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1975,6, 7–12.
Konedni, V.J., Libuser, L., Morton, H., & Ebbesen E.B. Effects of a violation of personal space on escape and helping responses.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1975,11, 288–299.
Langer, E.J., & Abelson, R.P. The semantics of asking a favor: How to succeed in getting help without really dying.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972,24, 26–32.
Libby, W.L., & Yaklevich, D. Personality determinants of eye contact and direction of gaze aversion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973,27, 197–206.
McGuigan, F.J. The experimenter: A neglected stimulus object.Psychological Bulletin, 1963,60, 421–428.
Modigliani, A. Embarrassment, facework, and eye-contact: Testing a theory of embarrassment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971,17, 15–24.
Patterson, M.L. An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy.Psychological Review, 1976,83, 235–245.
Scherwitz, L., & Helmreich, R. Interactive effects of eye contact and verbal content on interpersonal attraction in dyads.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973,25 6–14.
Schiffenbauer, A., & Schiavo, R.S. Physical distance and attraction: An intensification effect.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1976,12, 274–282.
Shaffer, J.P. Defining and testing hypotheses in multidimensinal contingency tables.Psychological Bulletin, 1973,79, 127–141.
Snyder, M., Grether, J., & Keller, K. Staring and compliance: A field experiment on hitch-hiking.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1974,4, 165–170.
Storms, M.D., & Thomas, G.C. Reactions to physical closeness.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977,35, 412–418.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Data from this experiment were presented at the meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Seattle, 1977. The author expresses thanks to David A. Kenny for his generous advice and assistance with data analysis. Appreciation is also extended to the following Wheaton College students who served as experimenters: Priscilla Brown, Nancy Boucher, Ali Chase, Wendy Churchill, Gail Gilmore, Rena Loderhose, Susan MacIntire, Wendy Minsky, Liz Popieniuck, Diane Riddle, Ann Sears, Lisa Shea, Debbie Swenson, Amy Zemsky.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kleinke, C.L. Interaction between gaze and legitimacy of request on compliance in a field setting. J Nonverbal Behav 5, 3–12 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987050
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987050