Propuesta de solución de reducción de nivel de ruido global por combinación de

Like gesture, gaze consists of cultural complexities. Even in the same cultural context, individuals with different personality profiles experience direct gaze in contrasting ways. Roelofs et al. (2010) compared the eye contact experiences of individuals with high social anxiety with those characterised by low social anxiety. Authors found that individuals with high social anxiety were significantly faster at avoiding angry faces that are simultaneously displaying direct gaze; they also avoided happy faces significantly more than individuals did who were low in social anxiety, regardless of gaze direction. When culture is brought into the equation, we can expect whole populations to differ from each other according to the social meanings transmitted in one context that would be contradicted in another. Using skin conductance measures, Wieser, Pauli, Alpers and Mülhlberger (2009) added demonstrations that direct gaze is threatening to socially anxious individuals. Wieser et al., however, did not find the gaze

avoidance shown in Roelofs et al. (2009). Thus, just as individual differences (Chen, Minson, Schöne & Heinrichs, 2013) and social settings (Wu, Bischof & Kingstone, 2013) within a culture shape the meaning of gaze signals, so gaze can also be expected to signal different messages across cultural settings.

Just as personality profiles can shape the interpretation of gaze (Brooks, Church & Fraser, 1986; Larsen & Shackelford, 1996; Wu, Bischof, Anderson, Jakobsen &

Kingstone, 2014), so too can cultural profiles. Argyle and Cook (1976) focus on the cultural complexities of mutual gaze (or eye contact) in particular. Indeed, the eye is a hothouse of cultural obsessions (cf. ‘the evil eye’, Elworthy, 2003). They review the way cultural differences exist in the meanings underlying mutual gaze. Watson (1970), for example, documented the contrast between ‘contact’ and ‘non-contact’ cultures. Asians (including East Asians) live in a non-contact culture, in which members touched and looked less at each other, faced each other less directly and stood further apart. Watson noted how, as a non-contact culture, East Asian populations considered extended eye contact to signal arrogance, threat and disrespect. Conversely, to contact cultures, which include Latin Americans and the Middle East, limited gaze conveys dishonesty, insincerity and non-confidence. Culturally, mutual gaze (or eye contact) is required for politeness in the West, but must be used with caution in the East to avoid conveying confrontation. In non-contact cultures, then, eye contact can be expected to be minimised in the same way as the gesture taboos that Kita (2009) describes. Just as the left hand is suppressed to the flick of a wrist in West African culture, so is eye contact reduced to the most fleeting moments whenever it is used in the East.

The East Asian avoidance of eye contact is additionally supported through research using video stimuli. Senju and colleagues presented Japanese and British adults with videos of faces that turned toward or away from participants (Senju et al., 2013). Japanese

participants showed a greater sensitivity to others’ gaze by looking at the avatar’s eyes for longer and by shifting their own gaze more promptly when the avatar moved their gaze away from the participant (cf. Jack, Garrod, Yu, Caldara & Schyns, 2012). Throughout, Japanese participants gazed longer at the eye further away from themselves compared with their British counterparts. The heightened sensitivity towards others’ eyes among East Asians demonstrates the greater complexity in gaze signals that is specific to East Asian culture.

It appears that eye contact is associated with stronger emotions among East Asians than it is within Western populations. Akechi presented images of emotionally neutral faces to Japanese and Finnish individuals (Akechi et al., 2013). Images either displayed direct or averted gaze. Japanese participants interpreted negative emotion in both gaze conditions (i.e., anger), but negative emotion increased when they were shown direct gaze (i.e., anger combined with sadness), whereas their Finnish counterparts did not interpret anger in either gaze condition. Cultural differences in gaze signals might also explained by where emotional information is obtained. Interpretations of emotional intensity are increased with gaze shifts among East Asians, whereas Western Caucasians use eyebrow and mouth movements as their primary source of emotional information (Jack et al., 2012). Moreover, the two cultural groups have contrasting ideas (i.e., internal

representations) of each basic emotion (Ekman, 1994): unlike their Western counterparts, East Asians are more dispersed in their ideas of each emotion, with features overlapping across emotions (Jack et al., 2012). In all, the eye region is significantly more likely to signal negativity among East Asians than Western Europeans. This potential for direct gaze to signal confrontation in East Asian settings was expected to play a role in my East Asian classrooms.

For the same cognition, different gaze directions have been used by different cultural groups (McCarthy, Lee, Itakura & Muir, 2006). For ‘knowing’, eye contact was sustained the longest by Trinidadians, followed by Canadians, with Japanese individuals sustaining eye contact for the shortest duration of time. For ‘thinking’, Japanese

individuals looked downwards, whereas Trinidadians and Canadians looked up. When observed by others, Canadians looked downwards during thinking, but upwards when unobserved. In contrast, Japanese individuals looked down regardless of having an audience (McCarthy, Lee, Itakura & Muir, 2008). With downward gaze being more useful for signalling non eye contact, it seems that East Asians may have an aversion to prolonged mutual gaze.

No known research has investigated the communicative gaze of expert teachers compared with novice teachers. However, given that the same gaze direction can signal contrasting messages across cultures, teachers can be expected to use different gaze patterns in accordance with culture-specific meanings behind gaze.