Why Erika Kirk’s Eyes Feel So Unsettling When Her Words Sound So Soft
You've probably seen it by now. That moment when someone says something gentle, something sympathetic, something designed to disarm you—but their eyes tell an entirely different story. It's the kind of thing that makes you rewatch a clip three times, zooming in on the frame, thinking: "What am I actually seeing here?" Welcome to the unsettling world of facial affect mismatch, where what someone's mouth is saying and what their eyes are broadcasting are operating on two completely different wavelengths. And right now, nobody's eyes are being scrutinized quite like Erika Kirk's.
If you've been anywhere near social media in the last few months, you've encountered the viral breakdowns, the TikTok analyses, the Reddit threads, and the Instagram reels obsessing over one very specific thing: her eyes. Not her politics. Not her role as CEO of Turning Point USA. Not even the controversies swirling around her public rise. Just... those eyes. That wide, prolonged opening. That reduced blinking. That locked, unwavering gaze that somehow reads as simultaneously vulnerable and dominating, soft and threatening, grieving and controlling. It's the kind of thing that makes your brain throw an error message: "Does not compute."
This isn't about being cruel or dismissing someone's appearance. This is about body language literacy—about understanding why millions of people are having the exact same visceral reaction to the same visual cues, and what those cues actually mean. Because here's the thing: your brain is smarter than you think. When body language doesn't match words, your nervous system notices before your conscious mind does. You feel the wrongness before you can articulate it. And once you see it, you cannot unsee it.
The First Time You Notice "Those Eyes"
Most people first catch it during one of her formal addresses or interviews—usually footage where she's speaking about grief, gratitude, or the future. The setting is typically polished: professional lighting, a composed posture, hair and makeup impeccable. She's saying all the "right" things. Words like "blessed," "grateful," "healing," "community," or "moving forward" flow out in measured, often soft tones. If you were listening with your eyes closed, you might believe every word. You might feel the sincerity, the weight of her experience, the genuine desire to connect.
Then you look at her eyes.
They're opened wider than conversational baseline. Not dramatically—not cartoon-wide, not horror-movie wide—but noticeably, consistently wider than someone typically opens their eyes when they're being reflective or vulnerable. The upper eyelid is lifted higher than it would be in a relaxed state. The whites of the eye are more visible than usual. There's minimal blinking, especially during the most emotionally laden phrases. And that gaze? It's locked. It doesn't soften. It doesn't water. It doesn't break away with the kind of natural eye movement you'd expect from someone who is genuinely in a state of grief or uncertainty.
Instead, what you get is a stare. Not hostile, necessarily. Not aggressive in any obvious way. But fixed. Penetrating. The kind of eye contact that in evolutionary psychology terms signals dominance, certainty, or control—not the vulnerable openness that her words are attempting to convey.
And that's when your brain starts screaming: "Something is OFF."
When Her Gaze Feels Louder Than Her Voice
Here's what makes this so psychologically fascinating: vision dominates our perception hierarchy. When researchers study how people process conflicting information—when words say one thing and body language says another—the body language wins about 65 to 93 percent of the time, depending on which study you read. The face and eyes are particularly powerful. They're the first thing we look at when we interact with another human being. They're also the hardest thing to fake convincingly, which is why people are so good at sensing when something is "off" even if they can't put it into words.
Erika Kirk's eyes are literally communicating louder than her voice in these moments. And what they're communicating doesn't match the narrative her words are building. This mismatch is what psychologists call "leakage"—nonverbal behavior that reveals what someone is actually feeling, thinking, or trying to control, often against what they're consciously saying.
In her case, the eye pattern suggests several possible things: intensity (possibly suppressed anger or determination rather than calm); hyper-focus or performance mode (she's aware she's being recorded and is locked into "delivering"); or a form of affective flattening where the emotional content of the words doesn't reach the face. Any of these would create that uncanny, unsettling feeling in viewers.
But here's where it gets interesting: the internet isn't wrong to notice this. Her eyes genuinely ARE broadcasting something different from her words. The question isn't whether the mismatch exists. The question is what it means and why she might be doing it—consciously or unconsciously.
Wide Eyes, Soft Words: Why Your Brain Throws an Error
To understand why this mismatch feels so viscerally unsettling, you have to understand what these eye patterns typically signal in human communication. Wide eyes, when combined with raised eyebrows and an open mouth, typically signal surprise, fear, or genuine vulnerability. A woman speaking about grief, loss, or overwhelm with wide eyes might read as authentic—she's shocked, she's struggling, she's raw.
But Erika Kirk's wide eyes aren't paired with raised eyebrows or an open, trembling mouth. They're paired with composed lips, controlled breathing, and a steady jaw. The upper face is broadcasting "alert" or "intense," while the lower face and vocal tone are broadcasting "calm" and "measured." These two signals are supposed to work together. When they don't, something in your lizard brain registers it as a threat or a deception.
Add to that the reduced blinking. Blink rates actually increase when people are under stress or lying—it's a nervous habit. But they also decrease when someone is in "predatory focus" mode, when they're concentrating intensely, or when they're deliberately controlling their nonverbal presentation. Erika's reduced blinking during emotional statements suggests control and focus rather than authentic emotional overflow.
The combination creates a paradox: her body is saying "I'm emotional and present" (the wide eyes), but her behavior is saying "I'm in control and locked in" (the steady gaze, reduced blinking, composed lower face). These are contradictory signals, and your brain, which has evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to read these subtle cues for survival, detects the contradiction immediately. It doesn't understand what it's seeing, so it flags it as suspicious, untrustworthy, or just plain wrong.
The Freeze-Frame That Ruins Her Whole Vibe
One of the most interesting things about this phenomenon is how static images amplify the effect. A single screenshot of her wide-eyed stare, frozen in time, looks far more intense and unsettling than the same moment in video. Why? Because in video, there's motion, blinking, and contextual flow that can soften the intensity. In a still frame, that wide-open eye and locked gaze become almost hypnotic—like a doll's eye or a fixed expression in a portrait.
This is why the memes and reaction videos have become so viral. Someone screenshots a moment, posts it with commentary like "Evil eyes" or "That stare," and suddenly everyone sees exactly what was pointed out. The freeze-frame becomes the evidence. Social media algorithms amplify it because it's visually arresting and emotionally triggering. And before long, it's the primary way millions of people know Erika Kirk's face—not as it appears in real time, but as it appears in that one perfect, unsettling screenshot.
This is also a trap that many public figures fall into. Moments that feel natural in real time can become ammunition when frozen. A blink missed by a camera can become "proof" of insincerity. A moment of intense focus can become proof of menace. The internet doesn't lie, exactly—it just selects the most disturbing frame and circles it in red.
But that doesn't mean the underlying observation is wrong. The mismatch between facial affect and spoken affect in her full-length videos is real, even if the meme-ification of it has become somewhat absurd.
Why Reduced Blinking Creepily Reads as Control
Let's talk about blinking, because it's one of those things that happens automatically and almost nobody consciously thinks about—until someone points it out and suddenly you can't stop noticing it.
The average person blinks about 15 to 20 times per minute during normal conversation. This rate increases when we're stressed, lying, or trying to suppress emotion. It can also increase when we're being deceptive, which is why people who are trained to lie often practice controlling their blink rate. But here's the flip side: blink rate also *decreases* when someone is in hyper-focus mode, predatory focus, or deliberately controlling their entire nonverbal presentation. Think of a cat stalking a bird. That unblinking, laser-focused stare. That's what reduced blinking communicates on a primal level.
In Erika Kirk's case, observers have noted that her blink rate appears lower than baseline, especially during key emotional phrases or when she's making an emphatic statement. This isn't a huge, obvious difference—it's subtle enough that most people wouldn't consciously register it if you didn't point it out. But your nervous system? Your nervous system absolutely registers it. Lower-than-normal blinking paired with wide eyes communicates intensity, focus, and control—not softness, vulnerability, or emotional overwhelm.
This is particularly striking when it appears during statements about grief, loss, or struggling. If someone is genuinely overwhelmed by emotion, you'd expect their blink rate to actually increase—they're anxious, they're processing, they're struggling. But if someone is performing calm in the face of intense pressure, or if someone is deliberately holding their composure, the blink rate might decrease as they lock themselves into that controlled presentation.
Some body language analysts have suggested that this reduced blinking represents her deliberate control over her emotional presentation—that she's consciously (or unconsciously) suppressing affect and locking into performance mode. Others suggest it's a sign of dissociation or emotional numbness. Either way, the interpretation is the same: something is being controlled or suppressed, and that suppression is being broadcast through her eyes.
The Stare That Doesn't Match the Script
Here's where things get really interesting, because it requires us to think about what a genuine, matching emotional presentation actually looks like.
When someone is truly grief-stricken, their eyes often have a glazed, unfocused quality. There might be tears, yes, but more importantly, there's a kind of emotional distance in the gaze—like they're looking through you rather than at you. The eyes might be red-rimmed or puffy. The pupils might be slightly dilated due to emotional stress. The overall effect is one of someone who is internally focused, processing, struggling.
When someone is genuinely uncertain or asking for understanding, their eyes soften. The gaze becomes more searching, more vulnerable. There's often a quality of "reaching out" in eye contact—not locking on, but connecting. The eyelids may lower slightly in a submissive or vulnerable posture.
When someone is performing confidence or authority, their eyes are typically steady, direct, and focused. There's intensity in the gaze. They maintain eye contact longer than is conversationally necessary. Their pupils are normal-sized (no emotional stress causing dilation). They're broadcasting: "I know what I'm talking about. I'm in control here."
Erika Kirk's eye pattern appears to combine elements of the confidence/authority gaze with the vocabulary and vocal tone of grief/vulnerability. She's saying, "I'm struggling," but her eyes are saying, "I'm in control." She's saying, "I'm asking for your understanding," but her eyes are saying, "I'm watching you." That mismatch is the entire source of the unsettled feeling millions of people are experiencing.
It's the equivalent of someone saying, "I love you so much," in a flat, monotone voice while maintaining a dead, unblinking stare. The words might be right, but the delivery is all wrong, and everyone in the room feels the disconnect.
When Comforting Phrases Land Like a Threat
This is perhaps the most psychologically unsettling aspect of the entire phenomenon: context switching.
Words have power, but so does delivery. The same phrase delivered two different ways can evoke two entirely different emotional responses. "I'm here for you" delivered with soft eyes, a gentle voice, and open body language feels like comfort. "I'm here for you" delivered with wide, unblinking eyes, a steady jaw, and a controlled tone can feel more like a threat or an assertion of dominance.
When Erika uses phrases like "We will never be silenced," or "Moving forward together," or "I'm so grateful," the words themselves are almost universally positive or emotionally resonant. But when paired with that wide-eyed, locked, intense gaze, something sinister gets added to the mix. It's like watching someone smile while their eyes remain cold. It's the uncanny valley of human communication—just wrong enough to trigger alarm bells.
This phenomenon has a name in psychology: the "Duping Delight" effect or incongruent affect. When someone says something comforting but their nonverbal cues suggest control, dominance, or suppressed intensity, observers detect the incongruence and interpret it as potentially manipulative or threatening. The brain essentially translates it as: "What she's saying is designed to make me feel better, but her physical presentation suggests she's not actually feeling what she's saying. Why would she do that? What is she really trying to communicate or control?"
And that's when viewers start obsessing. That's when they start rewatching clips, zooming in on frames, and circling the moment on social media. Because something in the presentation is triggering their threat-detection systems, even if they can't articulate exactly why.
How Viewers Turn Unease Into "Evil Eye" Memes
Once you notice something unsettling, it becomes impossible to unsee. This is called the "spotlight effect" or "attentional bias"—once your attention is drawn to a specific detail, you start seeing it everywhere, and it becomes magnified in importance.
In the case of Erika Kirk's eyes, what started as a few individual observations by body language analysts and psychology enthusiasts has become a full-blown internet phenomenon. People are now actively looking for "the eyes" moment in every video she appears in. Editors are creating compilation videos of her eye patterns. TikTok creators are making slow-motion analyses. And yes, the language has escalated from "unsettling facial affect mismatch" to "evil eyes" and "creepy stare."
This escalation is both a natural consequence of internet culture (extremes get more engagement than nuance) and a psychological phenomenon called "meaning-making." When we encounter something that disturbs us, we try to make sense of it by attaching labels and narratives. If we feel unsafe around someone's eye contact, we label it "evil" or "threatening" because those words capture the feeling, even if they're not technically accurate descriptions of what's happening neurologically.
The memeification of her eye patterns has a few consequences: First, it amplifies the original observation to the point where it becomes caricature. Not everyone who looks at those memes understands the original body language analysis—they just know that "Erika Kirk's eyes are creepy," which is a much simpler and more viral takeaway than "There is a mismatch between her facial affect and verbal affect that suggests emotional control or performance."
Second, it creates a feedback loop. The more viral the "evil eyes" narrative becomes, the more people look for it, the more clips get dissected, and the more real that interpretation becomes in the collective consciousness. This isn't necessarily malicious—it's just how attention and amplification work on social media.
Third, it shifts the conversation from observation to judgment. Instead of discussing what eye patterns communicate and why they might be significant, the discourse becomes more personal and less analytical. People are no longer analyzing body language; they're judging a person's character based on a frozen image.
The Science of Mixed Signals: Eyes vs. Language
To truly understand why Erika Kirk's eyes have become such a point of fascination, we need to dig into the neuroscience and psychology of how humans process contradictory signals.
The human brain is exquisitely sensitive to incongruence. When what someone says doesn't match what their body is doing, when their words don't align with their facial expression, when their tone contradicts their statement, something in our nervous system activates. It's called the "incongruency detection system," and it's one of our most powerful threat-detection mechanisms.
Why? Because in evolutionary terms, incongruence often signaled danger. If a predator was approaching with a friendly expression but predatory body language, the incongruence was literally the difference between life and death. Our ancestors who were good at detecting these mismatches survived. Those who weren't... well, they didn't.
That's why you can walk into a room with someone and instantly feel that something is "off" without being able to articulate why. Your amygdala—the threat-detection center of your brain—has already flagged the incongruence and is sending alarm signals throughout your nervous system.
In Erika Kirk's case, the incongruence is between the content of her statements (soft, vulnerable, grief-focused) and the nonverbal cues (intense eye contact, wide eyes, reduced blinking, controlled affect). These should align if she's being congruent. The fact that they don't triggers that ancient alarm system in all of us who are observing her.
Research shows that when people are asked to rate someone's trustworthiness based on conflicting signals, they weight the nonverbal signals far more heavily than the verbal content. In fact, studies suggest that 65 to 93 percent of communication is nonverbal—and while that specific statistic is often overstated, the principle is sound: we trust what we see far more than what we hear.
So millions of people are seeing Erika Kirk's wide, unblinking, intense gaze, and their threat-detection systems are saying: "This doesn't match what she's saying. This is incongruent. Something is off." And they're right. Something *is* incongruent. Whether that incongruence indicates malice, performance anxiety, emotional suppression, or something else entirely is a different question—but the observation itself is neurologically sound.
Is It Grief, Branding, Or Both In Her Gaze?
This is where we need to step back from pure observation and enter the realm of charitable interpretation—because the truth is, we don't actually know what's happening internally when Erika Kirk presents herself the way she does.
There are several plausible explanations for the eye pattern, and not all of them are sinister.
First, there's the grief hypothesis. Erika Kirk lost her husband, Charlie Kirk, unexpectedly and traumatically. She then found herself suddenly elevated to a major public role (CEO of Turning Point USA) while processing that grief on a national stage. It's entirely possible that what we're interpreting as "control" or "performance" is actually dissociation or emotional numbness—a common response to acute trauma. When people are in shock or processing significant grief, their affect can become flattened. Their eyes might remain wide and unfocused because they're not fully present. Their reduced blinking might reflect a kind of psychological freeze response—the body's way of going numb when overwhelmed.
In this interpretation, there's nothing sinister happening. There's a traumatized woman trying to hold it together in public while internally shattered. The incongruence between her words and her nonverbals isn't manipulation—it's the visible sign of someone who is saying what she's "supposed" to say while her nervous system is screaming underneath.
Second, there's the branding hypothesis. Erika Kirk is a public figure in a specific political movement. She's aware that she's constantly being observed, analyzed, and recorded. It's entirely plausible that she's consciously or unconsciously adopting a specific presentation style designed to project authority, confidence, and control—the qualities expected of a CEO and a prominent conservative voice. In this scenario, the intense eye contact and controlled affect aren't signs of malice or deception; they're signs of someone who has learned to perform the role she's been given.
Many public figures do this. Politicians, news anchors, corporate executives—they develop a "public face" that's slightly more controlled, more intense, more calculated than their private presentation. It's not necessarily dishonest; it's just professional. But to audiences, that professional presentation can read as cold or off-putting compared to what they're used to in intimate human interaction.
Third, there's the neurological hypothesis. Some people simply have a different baseline for eye contact intensity, blink rate, and facial affect expression. Some of this is genetic, some is cultural, and some is personality-based. Erika Kirk might just naturally maintain more intense eye contact, blink less frequently, and express emotions more subtly than average. In that case, the incongruence that millions of people are detecting might be partly real and partly projection—we're interpreting her natural baseline through the lens of our own expectations about what emotional expression "should" look like.
The truth is probably some combination of all three. She's probably processing genuine trauma while also consciously performing a public role while also simply being a person with her own neurological baseline for nonverbal expression. The incongruence is real—that much the observational data supports. But what that incongruence *means* remains largely in the eye of the beholder.
Why You Can't Stop Rewatching the Weird Eye Moments
There's a psychological principle at work here that explains why these clips become so viral and why people find them so compulsively rewatchable: it's called "cognitive dissonance."
Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable mental tension you experience when you encounter information or observations that contradict your existing beliefs or expectations. Your brain doesn't like contradiction. It wants things to make sense, to fit into coherent narratives. When something doesn't fit, your brain is driven to resolve the dissonance—either by changing your belief, reinterpreting the information, or seeking more data to clarify.
In Erika Kirk's case, most people encountering her for the first time are expecting a certain presentation: a woman in grief, a newly elevated leader, someone asking for understanding and support. That's the narrative being presented. But then the eye contact doesn't match. The affect doesn't match. The intensity of the gaze contradicts the softness of the words. And your brain goes: "Wait, that doesn't make sense. Let me rewatch that. Let me look closer. Let me try to resolve this contradiction."
So you rewatch. You zoom in. You show it to friends. You read the comments to see if anyone else felt what you felt. You're trying to resolve the dissonance—to make sense of the incongruence.
This is also why conspiracy theories and viral interpretations spread so effectively. Once someone points out a specific detail (in this case, "Look at her eyes"), it becomes nearly impossible to unsee. Every subsequent viewing is now filtered through that observation. Your brain is primed to look for it, so it finds it. And each time you see it, it feels more significant, more real, more important.
This doesn't mean the observation is wrong. But it does mean that our perception of how significant or meaningful the observation is might be amplified beyond what the raw data actually supports.
What Erika Kirk's Eyes Teach About Trusting Your Gut
Here's what we can say with confidence: millions of people are having a consistent, reproducible reaction to Erika Kirk's eye patterns. That reaction is that something feels "off" or unsettling. That reaction is widespread enough that it's spawned countless analyses, memes, and viral moments.
That tells us something important: your gut instinct about body language and incongruence is probably not crazy or unfounded. Your nervous system is designed to detect these kinds of mismatches. When you feel uncomfortable around someone's eye contact, when something about their presentation feels "off," when their words and their body language don't align—that's real information. Your brain is picking up on something.
But—and this is a crucial but—detecting that something is incongruent is not the same as knowing what the incongruence means. Detecting that someone's body language doesn't match their words doesn't automatically tell you whether they're being deceptive, traumatized, performing a role, neurodivergent, or just having a bad day.
This is where many people go wrong with body language analysis, and where the internet tends to leap from observation to accusation. We detect the incongruence (which is real) and then we fill in the rest of the story based on our own biases, fears, or narrative preferences. If we already distrust someone, we interpret the incongruence as "proof" of malice. If we're sympathetic to them, we interpret it as "proof" of trauma.
The body language itself is neutral. It's the interpretation we layer on top that carries judgment.
In the case of Erika Kirk, what we can say is: her eye patterns, her gaze intensity, her reduced blinking, and her controlled affect create a mismatch with her stated emotional content. This mismatch is neurologically real and universally detected by human observers. What that mismatch means—whether it indicates performance, trauma, personality style, or something else entirely—cannot be determined from body language analysis alone. To know that, you'd need to know her internal experience, her mental state, her intentions, and her lived context.
And that's something we can never know by watching videos on the internet.
The Bigger Picture: When Public Figures Become Case Studies
The phenomenon of Erika Kirk's eyes becoming a viral subject reveals something broader about how we consume media and analyze public figures in the age of social media.
We live in an era of unprecedented access to high-definition footage of public figures. We can pause, rewind, zoom in, and screenshot moments that previous generations would never have been able to scrutinize. We have access to body language analysis content created by professionals and amateurs alike. And we have platforms that allow us to instantly share our observations and interpretations with millions of people.
This creates both opportunity and danger. The opportunity is that we can become more literate in reading nonverbal communication. We can understand the science behind what makes something feel "off." We can appreciate the complexity of human behavior and expression. The danger is that we can also become hyper-analytical, seeing pathology in normal variation, weaponizing observations against people we already dislike, and creating feedback loops that amplify and distort our perceptions.
Erika Kirk's eyes have become a cultural artifact—a symbol that people use to represent whatever they already believe about her or about the broader political and social contexts she represents. For some people, they're proof of something sinister. For others, they're a sign of trauma. For still others, they're just the natural variation in how one woman happens to express herself on camera.
All of these interpretations exist simultaneously, and all of them are shaped by what each observer brings to the viewing.
Final Reflection: The Mismatch We Can't Ignore
Whether Erika Kirk's eye patterns indicate performance, trauma, authenticity, or something else entirely, one thing remains true: the incongruence between her facial affect and her verbal content is real, and it matters.
Not because it "proves" anything about her character or intentions, but because it illustrates something fundamental about human communication: we are not monolithic. We don't present as one unified whole. We contain multitudes, contradictions, and conflicts. Sometimes what we say and what we show are in alignment, and sometimes they're not. And when they're not, everyone feels it.
The question isn't whether the mismatch exists. The question is what we do with that knowledge. Do we use it to judge and condemn? Do we use it to speculate and gossip? Or do we use it as an invitation to think more deeply about trauma, performance, authenticity, and the invisible struggles everyone carries?
Erika Kirk's eyes teach us something about ourselves as much as they teach us about her. They teach us that we're all constantly reading the signals around us, that incongruence unsettles us, that our nervous systems are smarter than our conscious minds, and that the gap between what someone says and what they show is where all the real information lives.
The unsettling feeling millions of people experience when they watch her is real. But what you do with that feeling—how you interpret it, what narrative you construct around it, how you treat her based on it—that's entirely up to you.
Share Your Thoughts
Join the conversation on psychology, behavior, and the stories we're all watching unfold.
Instagram Pinterest TikTok X/TwitterDisclaimer: This post is for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not a diagnosis, professional mental health assessment, or medical advice. Body language analysis is interpretive and subjective; no conclusions drawn here should be considered definitive or applied to make judgments about any individual's character, intentions, or mental state. If you are struggling with anxiety, distrust, or difficulty reading social cues, please consult a licensed mental health professional. PinkNarcology and its authors assume no liability for misuse of this content.
References
Mehrabian, A. (1967). "Inference of Attitudes from the Posture, Orientation, and Distance of a Communicator." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6(2), 163–182.
DePaulo, B. M., et al. (2003). "Cues to Deception." Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). "The Repertoire of Nonverbal Behavior: Categories, Origins, Uses, and Coding." Semiotica, 1(1), 49–98.
Brown, T. (2015). Decode: The Body Language of Relationships. Body Language Institute Publications.
Navarro, J., & Karlins, M. (2008). What Every Body is Saying. Harper Business.
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. HarperCollins.
Vrij, A., et al. (2019). "Verbal and Non-Verbal Behavior Related to Deception." Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1420.
Grammer, K., Kruck, K. B., & Magnusson, M. S. (1998). "The Courtship Dance: Patterns of Nonverbal Synchronization in Opposite-Sex Encounters." Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22(1), 3–29.
Dimberg, U., Thunberg, M., & Elmehed, K. (2000). "Unconscious Facial Reactions to Emotional Facial Expressions." Psychological Science, 11(1), 86–89.
DeCasper, A. J., & Fifer, W. P. (1980). "Of Human Bonding: Newborns Prefer Their Mothers' Voices." Science, 208(4448), 1174–1176.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). "Gorillas in Our Midst: Sustained Inattentional Blindness for Dynamic Events." Perception, 28(10), 1059–1074.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). "The Halo Effect: Evidence for Unconscious Alteration of Judgments." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250–256.
Comments
Post a Comment