Encoding and decoding of nonverbal behavior through facial expressions

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN PERSONALITY 15, 241-252 (1981)

Encoding and Decoding of Nonverbal Behavior through Facial Expressions

DAVIDGALLAGHERANDRICHARD J. SHUNTICH

Eastern Kentucky University

Ten males and ten females served as both senders and receivers of nonverbal expressions in an experiment designed to examine various kinds of sending- receiving relationships. While the overall sending-receiving relationship for five types of expressions combined was positive and nearly statistically significant (. 10 > p > .OS), the category-specific sending-receiving relationships were near zero in magnitude or slightly negative. Sending-receiving relationships that were category specific and involved same-sex communication attempts only were found to be more negative with some being statistically significant. Females were found to be significantly better receivers but not significantly better senders than males. The results were discussed in terms of recent theoretical notions concerning sending and receiving processes.

A fascinating issue in the literature on nonverbal communication involves the relationship between an individual’s ability to encode or send nonverbal cues and the person’s ability to decode or receive the nonverbal expressions of others. From one perspective it seems reasonable to assume that the person who is a good sender should also be a good receiver. A person who is frequently very expressive seems to be a good candidate for an observer interested in the expressions of others. This type of relationship between the two abilities, a positive one, is exactly what was found by Levy (1964). Levy’s study involved the sending and receiving of paraverbal cues (voice intonation, voice intensity, etc.) which were audio-tape-recorded. Participants in this study attempted to com- municate five different emotional states and a significant positive correlation was found between the total sending scores (ability to send all five emotions) and the total receiving scores (ability to receive all five emotions). A similar positive relationship had been reported earlier by Knower (1945) in a study that also involved several emotions.

On the other hand, two studies have been reported more recently which

Correspondence should be addressed to: Dr. Richard J. Shuntich, Department of Psy- chology, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY 40475.

241

0092-6566/81/020241-12$02.00/O Copyright @ 1981 by Academic Press, Inc.

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

242 GALLAGHER AND SHUNTICH

have found a strong negative relationship between sending and receiving scores. Lanzetta and Kleck (1970) used only one emotional state (fear) in their study and only males were involved in the nonverbal communication attempts. A correlation of - .80 0, < .005) was found between sending and receiving scores. Miller, Levine, and Mirsky (1973) also employed only one emotional state (fear) in a study involving male rhesus monkeys. Once again a highly significant negative relationship (p < .OOl) was found between sending and receiving.

More recently, three studies have been published which shed consider- able light on this issue. Zuckerman, Lipets, Koivumaki, and Rosenthal (1975) utilized still photographs of several emotional states and found an overall positive relationship (r = .55, p < .Ol) between sending and receiving abilities. This result was similar to the ones reported earlier by Levy and Knower. However, Zuckerman et al. (1975) then reported a more detailed analysis of sending and receiving scores. When sending and receiving scores were correlated for each emotion separately, the r’s were small but negative in 7 of the 12 cases. A similar pattern of results has been reported in two other studies. Zuckerman, Hall, DeFrank, and Rosenthal (1976), in a study involving videotaped expressions, found an overall positive relationship between sending and receiving several emotional states (p = .20, n.s.), but found zero or negative correlations (all n.s.) when the relationship was explored separately for each emotion. Cunningham (1977), with videotape recordings of two emotions, found moderately negative and significant correlations between sending and receiving.* Thus, the controversy involving studies reporting positive relationships between sending and receiving (Levy, 1964; Knower, 1945) and those reporting negative relationships between the two abilities (Lan- zetta and Kleck, 1970; Miller et al., 1973) may now be better understood. As Zuckerman et al. (1976) have suggesed, it may be that one will find the overall sending-receiving relationship to be positive when several emotional states are involved but negative or zero when the research design includes only one emotional state or when one examines the relationship separately for each of several emotions. It may be that Levy and Knower would also have found negative or zero correlation had they examined separately each of the emotional states used in their studies.

While the aforementioned rationale may be a way of understanding some aspects of the sending-receiving relationship, other aspects remain unresolved. Why is it that some studies indicate a strong negative relationship between sending and receiving (Lanzetta & Kleck, 1970; Miller

’ While Cunningham found a negative sending-receiving relationship with two emotions, the emotions involved were happiness-elation and sadness-depression. Perhaps these two emotions represent but one dimension (happiness-sadness) and therefore the overall negative sending-receiving relationship found does not represent a departure from the pattern of results obtained in the other studies.

NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR 243

et al., 1973), while another suggests a moderate negative relationship (Cunningham, 1977), while still others suggest a weak negative or no relationship at all between the two abilities (Zuckerman et al., 1975, 1976)? There are several explanations for these results including the possibility that some sending-receiving relationships are sex specific and that differences in the gender characteristics of the subject populations used in these experiments are related to the strength of the sending- receiving relationship reported in the studies. Lanzetta and Kleck (1970) used males only and found a strong negative relationship between sending and receiving as did Miller et al. (although the males in this study were rhesus monkeys) while Cunningham (1977) and the two studies by Zuck- erman use both sexes in finding a moderate, weak, or no relationship between the abilities. Sending-receiving relationships for male to male and female to female communication attempts exclusively were not reported in these studies. It may be that an examination of same-sex communication attempts for both males and females will shed more light on this topic. Thus, one purpose of the present research was to further explore the relationship between encoding or sending nonverbal stimuli and decoding or receiving nonverbal expressions. Several different emotions were utilized and sending-receiving correlations for each emotion were examined first for all communication attempts and then separately for male-male and female-female communication attempts.

The present study, in examining sending-receiving relationships, also explored sex differences in both sending and receiving abilities. While females have quite consistently been found to be superior in both abilities (Hall, 1977, Note 1) relatively few studies have explored sex differences in both abilities using spontaneously generated videotaped expressions. Buck, Miller, and Caul(1974) found females to be better senders but not better recievers. On the other hand, both Zuckerman et al. (1976) and Cunningham (1977) found females to be better receivers but not better senders. A second purpose of the present study was to further examine sex differences in both sending and receiving abilities.

A third purpose of the present study was to explore a methodological issue specific to many studies that use film or videotape recordings of spontaneously generated expressions. While the spontaneous expressions preserved on film or videotape may be the most “natural” type of stimulus to use in nonverbal communication studies, this type of stimulus does present a methological problem not dealt with in previous research. The spontaneous reaction is typically obtained by having encoders talk about their reactions to various materials presented to them by the experimenter (i.e., Buck et al. 1974; Zuckerman et al., 1976). The encoders are filmed or videotaped during this expressive period. These film or tape segments, minus soundtracks, then become stimuli for the decoding part of the research. A potential problem with this procedure is that the research Darticinants mav lb-read durirw these clecndin~ nenninna. Thus. their


correct decoding attempts may reflect not only their ability to “read” facial expressions but also their ability to discern what the sender was saying during the encoding period. The present study attempted to elimi- nate the possibility of lip-reading and included a check on the efficacy of this attempt.

METHOD

Ten mate and ten female students of Eastern Kentucky University were recruited from six psychology classes to participate in the experiment. A large number of the subjects were psychology majors. The subjects were likely to have been more familiar with one another than a randomly selected sample from the total university population. Subjects were randomly divided into two separate groups with five males and five females in each group and videotape recordings were made of these twenty subjects. Four subjects were dropped after the taping session. Three were dropped from the experiment because of trouble with the videotape apparatus and one because of an error in the procedure. Four additional subjects were then recruited and videotaped.

Apparatus

The apparatus and procedure were modelled after Buck, Savin, Miller, and Caul (1972). Five categories of affect arousing visual stimuli were utilized in the study. There were four examples in each of the abstract, children, diseases, sexual, and religious categories, for a total of 20 stimuli. Examples of the abstract category were selected from the works of M. C. Escher. Specific works that were selected were paintings depicting visual and spaciai illusions. The children’s pictures consisted of photos selected of young children in various “cute” poses, costume scenes, etc. Pictures comprising the diseases category came from a medical book of pathological diseases. The photos chosen depicted close-up color shots of disfiguring and repulsive diseases. The sexual pictures were frank, but not overly explicit, photos of a young nude or semi-nude couples in various forms of embrace. Pictures comprising the religious category were all copies of paintings of religious events centering around the figure of Jesus. An attempt was made to keep the pictures within each category as internally consistent as possible. There was an attempt, also, to keep the sizes of the pictures themselves as alike as possible. The pictures were mounted on white pasteboard measuring 26.9 x 34.6 cm. A tape recorder was present in the subject’s room, although the subject’s vocal responses were not actually recorded.2 A videotape recorder was actually used to record the subject’s behaviors. In an attempt to minimize the possibility of lip-reading, a medium-sized microphone was used and the videotaping was timed with a stopwatch. The recorded tapes were played back to the observers by means of a videotape player connected with a full-sized television.

The experimenter and sender sat diagonally across the table from each other. This arrangement was necessary to get a clear shot of the sender. Videotaping was done through a one-way mirror placed between the two rooms. No transmission of sound (at normal levels) could take place between the rooms. Thus, it was not necessary to arrange for the masking of the sound the camera made.

Instructions

Subjects were told that the experiment was designed to evoke and record emotional and nonverbal responses. They were told that their verbal reactions to the photos would be recorded on the tape recorder and would provide the stimulus material for the second half of the experiment. The instructions indicated that the subjects should verbalize their reactions,

* The audio tape recorder was present as part of the cover story. It was felt that if the subjects knew they were being videotaped they may have behaved unnaturally.


emotional or otherwise, to the stimuli and to convey, by their tones of voice, information which a listener could use to accurately tell how they felt about each photo. They were told that they would have to be as spontaneous as possible. It was hoped that these instructions would facilitate expressive nonverbal behavior. Senders were also told to speak directly into the microphone “so as to provide for proper acoustics.” This actually was an attempt to mask the tip movements of subjects as they were being videotaped.

Procedure

The subject was brought into the experimental room by a female experimenter. The subject was seated and the experimenter seated herself 0.75 m from the subject. As the instructions were read to the subject by the experimenter, another person, located in an adjacent room, made the needed adjustments to the videotape camera. Care was taken to include the same part of the body for all subjects. The camera was focused to include only the head and neck, which allowed for a good close-up of the subject’s face. The order in which the pictures were presented to the senders was randomized for each subject. Pictures were presented to the subjects for their inspection by the experimenter who held them in front of her and slightly off to her side. The subject was only about 0.31 m away from the stimuli and he or she reacted for 30 set to each picture. As soon as the picture was presented to the subject, the camera was started and did not stop until 17 set of taping was completed. The other 13 set was used to reset the stopwatch, and occasionally to readjust the camera, as the subjects often shifted positions. The first session of the experiment required a total of approximately 15 min for each subject. They were not told after this first session that they had been videotaped because news of this could have spread to subjects who had not yet participated in this session. At least 2 weeks elapsed before any of the subjects were called to participate in the second session. The second session did not start until the first session was completed for all subjects. When the subjects were contacted to participate in the second session they were informed that they had been videotaped. It was explained to them that they had the right to disallow the viewing of their tape by other subjects but no one chose this option.

Each observer subject viewed himself, four other members of the same sex, and five members of the opposite sex. Before viewing the videotapes, each subject was shown a picture from each category. The task of the subjects during this part of the experiment was to judge the category of picture they thought the sender subject was reacting to. The subjects were instructed in the use of the score sheet and eight of the subjects were instructed to place a check mark next to their response if they thought they might be able to lip-read during that particular 17 set videotaped segment. The dependent measure was the number of correct responses the subject made in terms of identifying the category of stimuli the sender was reacting to.

The order in which the tapes were viewed was counterbalanced within each group. This procedure required approximately 1 hr 15 min to complete. After their viewing of the tapes was completed the subjects were told that the experiment was designed to investigate individual differences in the ability to send and receive nonverbal behavior, and the relationship between the sending and receiving. It was also explained to them why it was felt necessary to videotape without their knowledge. No objections to the deception were expressed. The female experimenter conducted the first session for ah subjects, and the first author conducted the second session.

RESULTS

Each observer made 20 judgments for each of nine stimulus persons.3 Correct responses were computed for each observer-sender pairing.

3 The nine stimulus persons involved five individuals of the opposite sex and four of the same sex. Evaluations the participants made of themselves were dropped from all analyses.


These scores could range from a low of 0 to a maximum of 20. Since the judges were asked to make a five-choice discrimination, the chance level for each judge was four of 20 for each stimulus person and a total of 36 correct responses for the entire 180 judgments. Thus, the chance level was 720 correct responses out of the total of 3600 judgments made by all participants. The number of correct responses totalled 1115. Ax2 analysis supported the hypothesis that judges performed at a better than chance level of accuracy (x2(1) = 270, p < .OOl). Thus, the results suggest that nonverbal communication did take place in the present study.

In an attempt to examine whether this nonverbal communication was mediated by lipreading, eight of the participants were instructed to identify each instance that they thought might involve their being able to lip-read.” Of the 1440 evaluations made by these eight participants, only 3 1 were made to nonverbal expressions which they judged as involving lip movements that may have been “readable.” This result suggests that lipreading could not have played a major part in the communication processes examined in the present study in that only slightly more than 2% of the 1440 evaluations made by these eight participants were judged to be possibly lip-readable. If the responses of these 8 individuals were representative of the responses of the total group of 2i) subjects, then lip- reading could have played only a very minor role in the present study. The notion that lip-reading played any role at all in the present study is called into question by the fact that the accuracy rate for the 31 “possibly lip-readable” expressions was actually slightly less (32.3%) than the accuracy rate for 1409 “non-lip-readable” expressions (32.4%) made by these same 8 participants. This very small difference in accuracy rates was not statistically significant k2 (1) < 1 .O).

The relationship between sending and receiving scores was examined statistically. The sending scores were determined by counting the number of accurate judgments made to each participant. Thus, an individual whose videotaped expressions were judged more accurately by several observers would receive a higher sending score. The receiving scores were determined by counting the number of correct responses each participant made to several different “senders. ” An individual adroit in evaluat- ing the expressions of others would receive a higher receiving score. A Pearson product-moment correlation was performed between the overall sending (all five categories combined) and overall receiving scores for all participants. The obtained correlation coefficient of +.348 was nearly statistically significant (df = 18, .lO > p > .05) indicating a positive relationship between overall sending and receiving. Correlations were

4 Even though “senders” were instructed to hold the microphone near their lips as they reacted to the stimuli, in some instances the microphone was not held in a way which blocked the mouth area from view.


then calculated using the sending and receiving scores specific to each of the five categories. These correlations are presented in Table 1. As can be seen from the table, three of the five correlations are negative, although none is statistically significant. Similar correlations were then calculated separately for each sex sending to and receiving from their owlt sex exclusively. These correlations are also presented in Table 1. Of the 10 correlations, only 3 are positive and none is more positive than +.08, while the 3 that were found to be statistically significant or nearly so were all negative. The average of these 10 correlations is -.25. Thus, while the overall correlation between sending and receiving was a positive one and nearly statistically significant, the same-sex category-specific correlations tended to be negative with 3 of the 10 statistically significant or nearly so. Correlations between sending and receiving different emotions are also presented in Table 1. These correlations are medians of the 4 correlations involving sending the category and receiving the other categories. These correlations are mixed-both positive and negative-suggesting that a negative sending-receiving relationship did not characterize the sending and receiving of different categories.

The results of the correlational analysis can be summarized as follows: the overall correlation between sending and receiving was positive and nearly statistically significant; however, the category-specific correlations tended to be negative and tended to be more negative as the analyses focused upon same-sex communications.

TABLE 1

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SENDING AND RECEIVING

Overall correlation between sending and receiving” +.35*

Correlations between sending and receiving for each category

Abstract Disease Religious Sex Child Ave

Same category M and F combined F to F only M to M only

-.29 +.21 -.ll -.28 .oo -.09 -.63** +.08 +.01 -..55* -.38 -.29 -.24 +.07 +.OS - .70** -.18 -.19

Median Correlations Different categoriesb

M and F combined F to F only M to M only

-.03 -.05 +.29 +.14 +.18 +.09 + .02 -.ll +.38 -.15 -.16 -.Ol -.lO -.19 +.20 -.08 +.42 + .05

a Based on one sending and one receiving score per participant. b Based on interpolated median of correlations involving sending the category and receiv-

ing each of the four other categories. * p < .lO.

** p < .05.


A 2 x 2 x 5 analysis of variance (sex of receiver x sex of sender x category) was performed on the receiving scores for each participant. The results of this analysis indicated that females were not significantly better receivers than males, although the means favored females. The mean receiving score for females was 5.20 and for males 4.74 (F( 1, 18) = 1.83, p < .20). There was a significant effect of the sex of the sender with females being more accurately received than males. The mean receiving responses made to females was 5.75 and that made to males was 4.19 (F( 1, 18) = 30.16, p < .OOOl). This result indicates that females were significantly better senders than males. There was also a significant effect for category (F(4,72) = 8.70,~ < .Ol). The means for the five categories are presented in Table 2. The disease category was most successfully received and a Neuman-Keuls analysis indicated that the accuracy level associated with the disease category was significantly higher than that of any of the other categories, which did not differ among themselves. The analysis of variance of the receiving scores yielded no significant interactions.

In summary, the analysis of variance indicated that females were significantly better senders than males but not significantly better receivers and that the accuracy rate associated with the disease category was significantly higher than those associated with the other categories which did not differ among themselves.

DISCUSSION

Nonverbal communication apparently took place in the present study as evidenced by fact that the rate of correct identification exceeded expectations based on chance. This was the case even though receivers of nonverbal affective responses were prevented from lip-reading verbal messages and, in the process, may have lost access to certain expressive cues associated with mouth movements. Previous studies in this area have not incorporated controls to prevent lip reading from playing a role in the nonverbal communication process. The present study included both a technique designed to prevent lip-reading and a check on the efficacy of

TABLE 2 MEAN CORRECT RESP~NSE~D TO THE FIVE CATEGORIES (CHANCE LEVEL = 4.0@)

Category Mean

Disease 6.72 Abstract 5.07* Children 4.52* Sexual 4.30* Religious 4.27*

(1 Cells with asterisks are not significantly different from one another by Neuman-Keuls Test.

b All categories were communicated at significantly greater than chance expectancy.


this technique. The results indicated that the microphone technique was relatively effective in preventing the possibility of lip-reading and that those few segments identified as “lip-readable” were no more easily decoded than non-lip-readable segments. Thus, masking the mouth area may be an unnecessary precaution in studies using methodologies similar to the one used in the present study (the Buck methodology). Nonethe- less, asking participants to identify “lip-readable” encodings and then comparing accuracy rates for these segments with those of non-lip- readable segments may still be a prudent control strategy in studies examining nonverbal communication phenomena.

The nearly statistically significant positive relationship between overall sending and overall receiving found in the present study is in line with the results of other studies (Levy, 1964; Zuckerman et al., 1975). Similarily, when the sending-receiving relationship was examined for each type of expression individually, weak negative or zero correlations were found, results that again parallel those reported earlier (viz, Zuckerman et al., 1975, 1976).

In an attempt to shed further light on inconsistencies in the previous literature, the sending-receiving relationship for each emotion was also examined for same-sex communication attempts only. These results were interesting. Although none of the five correlations between sending and receiving the same emotions based on scores for both sexes was significant, 3 of the 10 correlations between sending and receiving based on same-sex communications were significant (2) or nearly significant (1). These results very tentatively suggest that sending-receiving relationships for some emotions are more likely to be negative when only same- sex communications are considered. This may account for the discrepant findings of Lanzetta and Heck (1970), who reported a strong negative sending-receiving relationship, and Zuckerman et al. (1975, 1976), who found weak or no relationships between sending and receiving. Lanzetta and Kleck used male subjects only, while the two studies by Zuckerman and his colleagues used both male and female subjects. Perhaps Lanzetta and Kleck’s stronger negative relationship was at least in part the result of examining same-sex communications only.

In the present study the negative sending-receiving correlation for the sexual category of stimuli was relatively strong for both male-male communication attempts (- .70, p < .05) and female-female communication attempts (-.55, .lO > p > .05). Significant negative sending-receiving relationships have also been found for fear by Lanzetta and Kleck (1970) and for elation and depression induced via the Velten (1968) technique by Cunningham (1977).j Why should a good sender be a poor receiver and

j Cunningham actually found a negative relationship for pooled mixed and same-sex communication attempts which included attempts at sending and receiving both elation and depression.


vice versa when the communication attempts involve emotional responses to certain kinds of stimuli? Among the possible answers to this question are the following: (1) Expressive individuals expect others to behave like themselves and in response to certain stimuli this expectation is inaccurate; (2) Expressive individuals are relatively inexperienced in witnessing certain emotional expressions in others because (a) their atten- tion is directed more to their own experience than to the expressions of others or (b) others react to their responsiveness by inhibiting their own expression of these emotions. While a definitive answer to this question must await further research, it is interesting to note that in the present study negative sending-receiving relationships were stronger for same- sex communication attempts. This seems to support the first of the above explanations if one assumes that a tendency to expect others to respond like oneself will be stronger when the others are persons of the same sex. Given the range of responses that people may have to pictures with sexual content, for example, individuals with particularly strong emotional reactions of their own may have been especially fooled by expectations that others of their own sex would demonstrate similar reactions.

In the present study, females were found to be significantly better senders but not significantly better receivers of nonverbal expressions. These results are consistent with the results of many other studies which have found females to be better at one or another aspect of nonverbal communication (Hall, 1978, Note 1). Why should females be superior in this regard? Cunningham (1977) has suggested that sending nonverbal expressions involves a personality characteristic that he calls “spontaneous expressivity” and receiving involves a second and independent characteristic “social vigilance.” It may be that these characteristics are learned and that, in our culture, both are performed to a greater extent by women than by men. An alternative to the learning explanation is, of course, the innate sex differences notion. Buck (1975, 1977) has examined nonverbal behaviors in preschool boys and girls. While he failed to find sex-related differences in sending on most measures used in his first study, he did find preschool girls to be significantly better senders on one measure, and, in the later study, girls were evaluated as marginally more expressive @ < .lO) on a rating scale of affect expression. While these results may reflect the initial emergence of learned differences in expressivity or problems with the rating technique used (Buck, 1975, p. 651, 1977, p. 235), they may also be taken as weak support for an innate differences conceptualization. The results of the present study can be interpreted as supporting either explanation, and more conclusive answers to questions concerning the role of innate and learned factors must await further research.

In the present study the responses to the “disease” category were more easily identified than the responses made to any of the other categories.


While it is possible that emotional expressions of repulsion or disgust are more easily identified than many other emotions, it also may be that this is true only in certain contexts. That is, when the expression of repulsion is juxtaposed with the expressions of more positive emotions, as was likely the case for most participants in the present study, it may be relatively easily identified. However, there is evidence that if this expression is judged in a context of other “negative” emotions such as anger or contempt it may become more difficult to recognize. Thompson and Meltzer (1964) reported a study in which several emotional expressions were judged including anger, contempt, and disgust and these authors found that disgust was significantly more difficult to judge than happiness, love, or fear.

REFERENCES

Buck, R. Nonverbal communication of affect in children. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 1975, 31, 644-653. Buck, R. Nonverbal communication of affect in preschool children: Relationships with

personality and skin conductance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 225-236.

Buck, R. W., Savin, V. J., Miller, R. E., & Gaul, W. F. Communication of affect through facial expressions in humans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 23(2), 362-371.

Buck, R., Miller, R. E., & Gaul, W. F. Sex, personality, and physiological variables in the communication affect via facial expression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 1974, 30, 587-S%. Cunningham, M. R. Personality and the structure of the nonverbal communication of

emotion. Journal of Personality, 1977, 45, 564-584. Hall, J. A. Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 1978, 85,

845-857. Knower, R. H. Studies in the symposium of voice and action. V. The use of behavioral and

tonal symbols as tests of speaking achievement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1945,

29, 229-235. Lanzetta, J. R., & Kleck, R. E. Encoding and decoding of nonverbal affect in humans.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 16, 12-19. Levy, P. K. The ability to express and perceive vocal communications of feeling. In J. R.

Davitz (Ed.), The communication of emotional meaning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

Miller, R. E., Levine, J. M., & Mirsky, I. A. Effects of psychoactive drugs on nonverbal communication and group social behavior in monkeys. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 1973, 28, 3%-405. Thompson, D. F., & Meltzer, L. Communication of emotional intent by facial expression.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 68, 120-135. Velten, E. A. A laboratory task for induction of mood states. Behnviour Research and

Therapy, 1968, 6, 473-482. Zuckerman, M., Lipets, M. S., Koivumaki, J. H., & Rosenthal, R. Encoding and decoding

nonverbal cues of emotion. Journal of Personality and Soical Psychology. 1975, 32, 1068-1076.

Zuckerman, M., Hall, J. A., DeFrank, R. S., & Rosenthal, R. Encoding and decoding of spontaneous and posed facial expressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 1976, 34, 966-977.


REFERENCE NOTE I. Hall, J. Gender effects in encoding nonverbal cues. Unpublished manuscript, John

Hopkins University, 1978.

Encoding and decoding of nonverbal behavior through facial expressions

Documents

Transcript of Encoding and decoding of nonverbal behavior through facial expressions