When Looking Away Is Misread: Rethinking What Eye Contact Tells Us

I recently came across an article about the psychology of eye contact that made me stop and think. It described research suggesting that looking away during a conversation or an interview can actually help people process, particularly when questions become more cognitively demanding. Reducing visual and social input such as facial expressions can free up mental capacity to process information and formulate a response.

This seems like a simple observation, but it raises a much bigger question: How often do we mistake a difference in behaviour for a deficit?

In many Western professional environments, eye contact is associated with confidence, honesty, attentiveness and respect. Someone who avoids eye contact may be perceived as nervous, disengaged, lacking confidence—or even dishonest.

But those interpretations are not universal.

The article describes research comparing Japanese and Finnish participants that found meaningful cultural differences in how direct gaze was perceived. Although physiological responses were similar, Japanese participants were more likely than Finnish participants to perceive faces with direct gaze as angry and less approachable. The researchers attributed the difference to cultural display rules rather than a universal, hard-wired meaning of eye contact.

That matters. It reminds us that the behaviour we observe and the meaning we assign to it are two different things.

Neurodiversity adds another important dimension. For some neurodivergent people, including some autistic people, eye contact can be uncomfortable, distracting or cognitively demanding. Looking away may actually help someone listen, process information, regulate sensory input or formulate a response.

Consider a job interview with a panel of 3 interviewers. When the candidate is asked for an example of a professional failure, she looks away for several seconds before answering.

One interviewer might think, “She's uncomfortable.”

Another might think, “She's not confident.”

Another might wonder, “Is she avoiding the question?”

But perhaps she's simply thinking.

The behaviour is the same, but the interpretation is different. And that interpretation can influence the outcome if it is born from unconscious bias.

Bias doesn't always look like a discriminatory decision. Sometimes it looks like an instinctive or "gut" impression:

“I'm not sure about them.”

“They didn't seem very engaged.”

“Something just felt off.”

Our brains naturally use familiar social cues to take shortcuts and make quick judgments. The problem arises when we mistake our own cultural or neurological expectations for universal measures of confidence, professionalism or competence.

So what can we do differently?

Start by separating observation from interpretation.

“They looked away” is an observation.

“They were disengaged” is an interpretation.

Before assigning meaning to a behaviour, consider what else might explain it. Could culture, neurodiversity, processing, sensory considerations, personality or simply a different communication style be a valid explanation?

And, most importantly, focus on substance.

What did the person ultimately say when they responded? What evidence do you have of their capability, or lack thereof?

Eye contact is just one example of a much broader issue. We make assumptions about tone, facial expression, pauses, body language and conversational style—and sometimes mistake unfamiliar communication for poor communication.

The challenge isn't getting everyone to communicate the same way; it's becoming better at recognizing value when communication looks different. So the next time someone communicates differently than we expect, perhaps the first thing we should examine isn’t their behaviour—it’s our interpretation of it.

Source and further reading:

This post was inspired by the Silicon Canals article, “Psychology Says People Who Avoid Eye Contact in Conversation Aren’t Necessarily Aloof or Disengaged.”

Read the original article