‘Eye contact does not elicit synchrony; it disrupts it’: Prolonged eye contact during conversations can block connection

Credit: Rees McCann
Credit: Rees McCann

Making eye contact has long been conceived as acting like a cohesive glue, connecting an individual to the person with whom they are talking. Its absence can signal social dysfunction. Similarly, the growing study of neural synchrony has focused on the positive aspects of alignment in brain activity between individuals.

In [a] new study, by using pupil dilation as a measure of synchrony during unstructured conversation, psychologist Thalia Wheatley and graduate student Sophie Wohltjen found that the moment of making eye contact marks a peak in shared attention—and not the beginning of a sustained period of locked gazes.

Synchrony, in fact, drops sharply after looking into the eyes of your interlocutor and only begins to recover when you and that person look away from each other. “Eye contact is not eliciting synchrony; it’s disrupting it,” says Wheatley.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Why would this be? Conversation requires some level of synchrony, but Wheatley and lead study author Wohltjen speculate that breaking eye contact ultimately propels the conversation forward.

“Perhaps what this is doing is allowing us to break synchrony and move back into our own heads so that we can bring forth new and individual contributions to keep the conversation going,” Wohltjen says.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here.

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT Image May 26, 2026, 08_42_17 AM (1)
Viewpoint: Greenpeace and poison: How environmental advocacy groups rely on compliant (and often ignorant) journalists to spread disinformation and spark litigation
Screenshot 2025-07-30 at 10.48
Can gene editing eliminate Down syndrome? Scientists have done it in lab-grown cells
Screenshot-2026-05-28-at-1.36.28-PM
Viewpoint: Can mRNA research survive the Trump administration?
Screenshot-2026-06-02-at-11.59.11-AM
Magnifica Humanitas: Pope’s encyclical broadside against AI naivete and overreach
Screenshot 2025-11-18 at 3.45
Viewpoint—GMOs and sustainability: Why buying organic foods is the least environmentally-sensitive food choice—without offering any health benefits
ChatGPT-Image-May-26-2026-07_51_21-AM-2
Viewpoint: There are more than 1,000 chemicals in a cup of coffee—including many substances that can cause cancer. Why isn’t it banned?
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-2-2026-11_39_58-AM
Viewpoint: Who is RFK, Jr.’s newly-appointed CDC senior counselor, Sara Brenner — Vaccine skeptic and self-proclaimed “MAHA mom”
Picture1
Sounds we can’t hear — the hidden planetary signals behind science, fear, and misinformation
ChatGPT Image May 28, 2026, 08_16_38 PM
Viewpoint: Why the EPA mismeasures cancer risk of chemicals and what should be done to fix it
Screenshot-2026-06-01-at-1.35.32-PM
Viewpoint: Swine farmers are under attack for allegedly mistreating their animals. Here are the facts.
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.