SEVERE TESTS,ARGUING FROM ERROR,AND METHODOLOGICAL UNDERDETERMINATION

Philosophical Studies -     

COMMUNICATIVE EFFECTS OF GAZE BEHAVIOR

This experiment was undertaken to test two contrasting explanations of the effects of eye gaze on social perceptions and outcomes. A social meaning model holds that differing levels of gaze have such clear meaning that gaze alone accounts for the reactions to it. A nonverbal expectancy violations model holds that normative behaviors are expected in social interactions with strangers and that violating these expectations produces different results depending on whether the violator is deemed highly “rewarding” or “nonrewarding.” This experiment, the third in a series, proposed to extend the violations model by incorporating the concept of positive and negative types ofviolations. Subjects (N = 145) interviewed one of four confederate interviewees who manipulated one of three levels of eye gaze (nearly constant, normal, andnearly constant aversion) and who were assigned one of two levels of reward (highly qualified for the job or highly unqualified). Differential gaze behavior resulted in varied impressions of attraction, credibility, and relational communication, with gaze aversion producing consistently negative effects. Interpretations and communication consequences were mediated by reward, gender, and confederate differences.     

Addiction and Self‐Deception: A Method for Self‐Control?

Neil Levy argues that while addicts who believe they are not addicts are self‐deceived, addicts who believe they are addicts are just as self‐deceived. Such persons accept a false belief that their addictive behaviour involves a loss of control. This paper examines two implications of Levy's discussion: that accurate self‐knowledge may be particularly difficult for addicts; and that an addict's self‐deceived belief that they cannot control themselves may aid their attempts at self‐control. I argue that the self‐deceived beliefs of addicts in denial and of self‐described addicts differ in kind. Unlike the self‐deception of an addict in denial, that of the self‐described addict allows them to acknowledge their behaviour. As such, it may aid an addict to develop more self‐control. A paradoxical implication is that this self‐deception may allow an addict more self‐knowledge.