Making eye contact makes me feel uncomfortable. And I’m not alone. This seemingly simple social convention can trigger profound discomfort, anxiety, and even physical pain in some. When I’m talking to people, I look off to the side, and when they are talking to me I either look at their lips or position myself parallel to them so we’re not facing each other.
According to Western society and the myriad self-help articles on effective communication and building “great” relationships, this lack of eye contact means I’m shady, disrespectful, or disinterested.
I am none of those things.
I value truth and direct communication more than most, I believe everyone has inherent worth and deserves respect accordingly, and I am fascinated by humans and human behavior, so I’m rarely disinterested when people are talking to me, even if I might not be particularly interested in the subject matter at hand.
So why does society perpetuate this myth? And where did it even come from?
The time has come to challenge this pervasive myth and recognize that meaningful human connection happens in diverse ways that extend far beyond our gaze.
Who Decided Eye Contact Was “Proper”?
The truth is, no one really knows who or why it was decided that maintaining eye contact is “proper”.
It’s likely that it traces back centuries, emerging from distinctly European ideas about power, status, and social control. Or that it’s based on evolutionary perspectives involving primates.
And as we’ve mentioned, right now, workplace communication guides and relationship advice columns continue to reinforce these arbitrary standards. We’ve even been guilty of this on our own site in the past.
The persistence of this norm says more about social control and conformity than about actual human connection. When we look deeper into this, we can begin questioning its universal application.
Enforcement Starts Early
From earliest childhood, the demand for eye contact becomes a control mechanism wielded by adults over children. This enforcement creates lifelong patterns of conformity—and for many, lifelong anxiety.
Parents and teachers routinely interrupt children’s natural attention patterns with the sharp command: “Look at me when I’m talking to you.” This instruction frames eye avoidance as deliberate disrespect rather than a natural variation in human communication styles. Children quickly learn that their comfort and sensory needs matter less than conforming to adult expectations.
School systems reinforce this pattern through classroom management strategies that equate attention with eye contact. Teachers regularly praise children who “show they’re listening with their eyes” while reprimanding those who look away—despite research showing many children process auditory information better when not forced to maintain visual focus.
Television programs, parenting books, and children’s literature further normalize this expectation. Characters are routinely depicted as suspicious or rude when they don’t make eye contact, while “good” characters demonstrate attentiveness through their gaze.
Beyond the Myth: Why People Avoid Eye Contact
Countless legitimate reasons explain why someone might avoid eye contact while remaining completely engaged, respectful, and honest during interaction.
Autistic individuals often experience eye contact as overwhelming or physically painful. An autistic friend describes the sensation as like being blinded by headlights while trying to concentrate on complex social information, something which research confirms. Studies using functional MRI have confirmed heightened activation in the amygdala—the brain’s threat detection center—when autistic people maintain forced eye contact.
Sensory processing differences extend beyond autism to include neurological differences like ADHD, where visual input can compete with auditory processing. And many individuals, regardless of neurotype, simply report that breaking eye contact helps them concentrate on complex information or formulate thoughts, which we mentioned earlier has been confirmed in scientific research.
Studies show that cultural variations significantly impact eye contact norms. Some East Asian, Indigenous, and Middle Eastern cultures consider sustained eye contact disrespectful or aggressive, particularly between people of different social statuses or across gender lines. Depending on the situation, Japanese communication often emphasizes eye contact with the neck rather than directly meeting gaze, while some Native American communities traditionally consider extended direct gaze intrusive. However, there are huge variations even within these cultures.
Social anxiety commonly manifests as eye contact avoidance too. The fear of being negatively evaluated creates overwhelming self-consciousness that makes direct gaze unbearable.
Research shows that trauma survivors may also struggle with eye contact, and with good reason. Direct gaze may trigger hypervigilance and activate their innate alarm system. Their avoidance represents a protective mechanism rather than disrespect.
For the many people who find eye contact uncomfortable or painful, forcing it acts as a threat to their safety. Dr. Stephen Porges, developer of Polyvagal Theory, explains how threat activates the sympathetic nervous system—our fight-or-flight response—making it physiologically impossible to remain calm and engaged. Yet we continue to pressure people to do something that threatens them.
The Harmful Consequences Of Forced Eye Contact
Forcing people to maintain eye contact against their natural inclinations creates tangible harm that extends far beyond momentary discomfort.
Masking—the exhausting process of suppressing natural behaviors to appear “normal”—represents perhaps the most significant consequence. Research shows that autistic women and girls particularly suffer under intense socialization pressures to be “good” and “polite” regardless of their internal experience. They may force eye contact because of this, yet it exacts a tremendous psychological toll, with experts advising it results in increased depression, anxiety, and burnout among those who regularly mask their communication preferences. This masking also means that autistic women frequently go undiagnosed or misdiagnosed, meaning they miss out on vital support and self-understanding throughout their lives.
Physical symptoms including headaches, increased heart rate, and cortisol spikes commonly affect those maintaining uncomfortable eye contact, because of the threat to the nervous system we mentioned earlier. For autistic individuals and others with sensory processing differences, these physiological responses can trigger shutdowns or meltdowns that derail communication entirely.
Cognitive processing suffers when individuals must divide attention between comprehension and maintaining socially acceptable gaze patterns. Researchers have found that participants naturally avert their gaze when thinking about challenging questions, and that this behavior appears to support cognitive processing rather than indicate disengagement.
Professional consequences accumulate when eye contact becomes a hiring criterion or performance metric. Companies may overlook highly qualified candidates who would bring tremendous value simply because their communication style doesn’t match neurotypical or cultural expectations.
Perhaps most disturbingly, in my opinion, is that forcing eye contact teaches vulnerable people to override their instinctive boundaries. When children learn that adults can demand physical behaviors that cause distress, their ability to recognize and enforce other personal boundaries becomes compromised.
The emphasis on eye contact also reinforces ableism by privileging neurotypical communication styles. It teaches neurodivergent people that their natural communication style is wrong or disordered, rather than just different and valid. It creates artificial barriers to education, employment, and social connection for those whose neurology makes sustained eye contact difficult or impossible.
When Eye Contact Avoidance May Signal Concerns
While we must respect diverse communication styles, certain contexts do warrant attention to changed eye contact patterns.
Sudden changes in established patterns may indicate important shifts. When someone who typically maintains comfortable eye contact abruptly stops, it might signal distress, depression, or conflict. The key distinction lies in deviation from their personal baseline rather than comparison to arbitrary social standards.
It’s all about context. What matters isn’t whether someone makes “enough” eye contact by social standards, but whether their current pattern represents a significant change for them individually.
Deception research presents a more nuanced picture than popular belief suggests. While conventional wisdom claims liars avoid eye contact, studies by deception expert Dr. Aldert Vrij consistently show that many people actually increase eye contact when lying in an attempt to appear honest. The relationship between truthfulness and gaze proves far more complex than simplistic myths suggest.
Power dynamics may also influence when eye contact patterns deserve scrutiny. In contexts involving significant authority differentials, sustained eye contact may sometimes represent intimidation rather than connection. Similarly, staring without breaks can constitute a boundary violation rather than attentiveness.
The key difference between respecting communication diversity and recognizing potential concerns lies in comprehensive assessment rather than isolated focus on eye contact alone. Change within individuals matters more than comparison between people.
Moving Forward: Creating Communication Flexibility
The path toward more inclusive communication requires abandoning rigid eye contact expectations in favor of flexibility that honors diverse needs.
Education represents our most powerful tool for changing these entrenched attitudes. Schools should incorporate social-emotional learning that explicitly teaches communication diversity—helping children understand that respect manifests differently across cultures and neurotypes. Rather than enforcing arbitrary eye contact rules, educators can model multiple ways of demonstrating engagement.
Parents can benefit from understanding the developmental impact of demanding eye contact. Instead of “Look at me when I’m talking,” they can try checking comprehension directly: “Can you tell me what I just explained?” This focuses on actual understanding rather than performance.
Workplace environments need updated policies that recognize communication diversity as an asset rather than a liability. Interview guidelines that prioritize substance over eye contact would immediately increase accessibility for qualified candidates from various neurological and cultural backgrounds.
Media representations powerfully shape social expectations. Television, film, and literature creating positive portrayals of characters with diverse communication styles help normalize these differences for broader audiences.
Individual advocacy matters too. Those comfortable discussing their communication preferences can help educate others through simple explanations: “I’m listening carefully even though I may look away while processing what you’re saying” creates immediate understanding without apology.
For those in positions of authority—teachers, managers, healthcare providers—experimenting with alternative conversation arrangements makes a significant difference. Walking meetings, side-by-side seating, or activity-based discussions often facilitate deeper connection for those uncomfortable with direct gaze.
Professional organizations for counselors, educators, and business leaders should update ethical guidelines and best practices to reflect current understanding of neurodiversity and cultural variation. When authoritative sources acknowledge communication diversity, individual accommodation becomes easier to request and implement.
Most fundamentally, moving forward requires questioning our assumptions about what constitutes “proper” communication. By recognizing that human connection flourishes in many forms, we create space for authentic engagement that honors each person’s unique neurological and cultural reality.
You may also like:
