The effect of eye contact on credibility was examined via a 3 (low, medium, high eye contact) × 2 (male, female) between-groups design with 232 undergraduate participants. A trial transcript excerpt about a defendant's recidivism likelihood was utilized as the experts' script. A main effect was found: Experts with high eye contact had higher credibility ratings than in the medium and low conditions. Although a confound precluded comparisons between the genders, results indicated that males with high eye contact were more credible than males with medium or low eye contact. The female experts' credibility was not significantly different regardless of eye contact. Eye contact may be especially important for males: Male experts should maintain eye contact for maximum credibility.
Aguinis, H., & Henle, C.A. (2001). Effects of nonverbal behavior on perceptions of a female employee's power bases. Journal of Social Psychology , 141, 537-549.
2.
Aguinis, H., Simonsen, M.M., & Pierce, C.A. (1998). Effects of nonverbal behavior on perceptions of power bases. Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 455-469.
3.
Boccaccini, M.T. (2003). Impact of witness preparation training on the use of targeted testimony delivery skills, perceived credibility, and evaluations of guilt (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama , 2003). (UMI No. 3101735)
4.
Boccaccini, M.T., & Brodsky, S.L. (2002). Believability of expert and lay witnesses: Implications for trial consultation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 384-388.
5.
Bond, C.F., Omar, D., Pitre, U., Lashley, B.R., Skaggs, L.M., & Kirk, C.T. (1992). Fishy-looking liars: Deception judgment from expectancy violation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 969-977.
6.
Bornstein, B.H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
7.
Brodsky, S.L. (1999). Power and control: Gaze and eye contact. In Testifying in court: Guidelines and maxims for the expert witness (pp. 143-146). Washington, DC: APA.
8.
Brooks, C.I., Church, M.A., & Fraser, L. (2001). Effects of duration of eye contact on judgments of personality characteristics. Journal of Social Psychology , 126, 71-78.
9.
Carli, L.L., LaFleur, S.J., & Loeber, C.C. (1995). Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1030-1041.
10.
Cheek, J.M., & Buss, A.H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 330-339.
11.
Dacy, J.M., & Brodsky, S.L. (1992). Effects of therapist attire and gender. Psychotherapy, 29, 486-490.
12.
Dunn, K.F. (2003). Assessing the external validity of jury simulation research: A meta-analysis (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 6141.
13.
Eagly, A.H., & Karau, S.J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.
14.
Eagly, A.H., Makhijani, M.G., & Klonsky, B.G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis . Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3-22.
15.
Griffin, M.P., Brodsky, S.L., Blackwood, H., Abboud, B., & Flanagan, C.B. (2004). The Witness Credibility Scale. Unpublished manuscript, University of Alabama.
16.
Hemsley, G.D., & Doob, A.N. (1978). The effect of looking behavior on perceptions of a communicator's credibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8, 136-144.
17.
Hosoda, M., Stone-Romero, E.F., & Coats, G. (2003). The effects of physical attractiveness on job-related outcomes: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Personnel Psychology, 56, 431-462.
18.
Kleinke, C.L. (1986). Gaze and eye contact: A research review. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 78-100.
19.
Krauss, D.A., & Lee, D.H. (2003). Deliberating on dangerousness and death: Jurors' ability to differentiate between expert actuarial and clinical predictions of dangerousness. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry , 26, 113-137.
20.
Krauss, D.A., & Sales, B.D. (2001). The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 267-310.
21.
Memon, A., & Shuman, D.W. (1998). Juror perception of experts in civil disputes: The role of race and gender. Law & Psychology Review, 22, 179-197.
22.
Richmond, V.P., & McCrosky, J.C. (2004). Nonverbal behavior in interpersonal relations (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
23.
Ritts, V., Patterson, M.L., & Tubbs, M.E. (1992). Expectations, impressions, and judgments of physically attractive students: A review. Review of Educational Research , 62, 413-426.
24.
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (Eds.). (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes: Volume 1. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
25.
Schuller, R.A., Terry, D., & McKimmie, B. (2001). The impact of an expert's gender on jurors' decisions . Law and Psychology Review, 25, 59-79.
26.
Schuller, R.A., Terry, D., & McKimmie, B. (2005). The impact of expert testimony on jurors' decisions: Gender of the expert and testimony complexity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1266-1280.
27.
Spangler, L. (1995). Gender-specific nonverbal communication: Impact for speaker effectiveness. Human Resource Development Quarterly , 6, 409-419.
28.
Wheeler, W.R., Baron, J.C., Michell, S., & Ginsburg, H.J. (1979). Eye contact and the perception of intelligence. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13, 101-102.
