Scholarlink

<p>Gaze behavior, being continuously accessible to interlocutors in face-to-face interactions, serves as a cue for managing turn-taking, regulating the duration of topical sequences, and supporting cognitive processing in various everyday conversational contexts. The present study seeks to enhance the understanding of the relation between two forms of interactive gaze behavior – gaze aversions and mutual gaze – and the topical development in the explanatory discourse. To do so, we analyzed 24 dyadic board game explanations in which one explainer subsequently explained a board game to three different explainees while the board game was physically absent from the shared space. The main objective of the present study was to investigate the relation of gaze aversions and mutual gaze to the topical development of explanations. For this, based on previous research (Lazarov et al., <CitationRef CitationID="CR29">2024</CitationRef>; Rossano, <CitationRef CitationID="CR37">2012</CitationRef>) we hypothesized that (1) gaze aversions are more likely to be associated with topic changes than topic continuations, and that (2) mutual gaze is more likely to be associated with topic continuations than topic changes. In addition, we explored how the two forms of gaze behavior are related to the interlocutor who initiates a topic change or continuation. Our proportional analysis using a Generalized linear mixed effects model revealed that gaze aversions are related to topic changes initiated by both interlocutors. In contrast, the analysis did not reveal a significant relation between mutual gaze and topic continuations, which could be explained by the feedback elicitation function of mutual gaze at the end of speakers’ utterances (Bavelas et al., <CitationRef CitationID="CR6">2002</CitationRef>; Brône et al., <CitationRef CitationID="CR8">2017</CitationRef>; Kendon, <CitationRef CitationID="CR25">1967</CitationRef>) while monitoring the addressees’ understanding (Clark &amp; Krych, <CitationRef CitationID="CR12">2004</CitationRef>) and the complexity of the analyzed fixed and random effects.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

How are Gaze Aversions and Mutual Gaze Related to the Topical Development of Dyadic Explanatory Interactions?

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月28日

查看全文
  • Stefan Lazarov,
  • Angela Grimminger

摘要

Gaze behavior, being continuously accessible to interlocutors in face-to-face interactions, serves as a cue for managing turn-taking, regulating the duration of topical sequences, and supporting cognitive processing in various everyday conversational contexts. The present study seeks to enhance the understanding of the relation between two forms of interactive gaze behavior – gaze aversions and mutual gaze – and the topical development in the explanatory discourse. To do so, we analyzed 24 dyadic board game explanations in which one explainer subsequently explained a board game to three different explainees while the board game was physically absent from the shared space. The main objective of the present study was to investigate the relation of gaze aversions and mutual gaze to the topical development of explanations. For this, based on previous research (Lazarov et al., 2024; Rossano, 2012) we hypothesized that (1) gaze aversions are more likely to be associated with topic changes than topic continuations, and that (2) mutual gaze is more likely to be associated with topic continuations than topic changes. In addition, we explored how the two forms of gaze behavior are related to the interlocutor who initiates a topic change or continuation. Our proportional analysis using a Generalized linear mixed effects model revealed that gaze aversions are related to topic changes initiated by both interlocutors. In contrast, the analysis did not reveal a significant relation between mutual gaze and topic continuations, which could be explained by the feedback elicitation function of mutual gaze at the end of speakers’ utterances (Bavelas et al., 2002; Brône et al., 2017; Kendon, 1967) while monitoring the addressees’ understanding (Clark & Krych, 2004) and the complexity of the analyzed fixed and random effects.