Knapp Chapter01

8/9/2019 Knapp Chapter01

1/31

censed to: iChapters User


2/31

Nonverbal Communication in Human

Interaction, Seventh Edition

Mark L. Knapp

Judith A. Hall

Publisher: Lyn Uhl

Executive Editor: Monica Eckman

Development Editor: Kate Scheinman

Assistant Editor: Rebekah Matthews

Editorial Assistant: Colin Solan

Marketing Manager: Erin Mitchell

Marketing Coordinator:

Christine Dobberpuhl

Marketing Communications Manager:

Darlene Macanan

Content Project Management: Pre-Press

PMG

Art Director: Linda Helcher

Print Buyer: Susan Carroll

Permissions Editor: Bob Kauser

Photo Manager: Don Schlotman

Photo Researcher: Nina Smith

Cover Designer: Rokusek Design

Compositor: Pre-Press PMG

2010, 2007 Wadsworth, Cengage Learning

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by thecopyright herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored, or usedin any form or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical,

including but not limited to photocopying, recording, scanning,digitizing, taping, Web distribution, information networks, orinformation storage and retrieval systems, except as permittedunder Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States CopyrightAct, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

For product information and technology assistance,

contact us at

Cengage Learning Academic Resource Center,

1-800-423-0563

For permission to use material from this text or product,submit all requests online at

www.cengage.com/permissions.

Further permissions questions can be e-mailed [email protected].

Library of Congress Control Number: 2009922302

ISBN-13: 978-0-495-56869-8

ISBN-10: 0-495-56869-4

Wadsworth | Cengage Learning20 Channel Center

Boston, MA 02210

USA

Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada byNelson Education, Ltd.

For your course and learning solutions, visitwww.cengage.com.

Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our pre-ferred online store www.ichapters.com.

Printed in Canada

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 11 10 09

Copyright 2009 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in pa



3/31

C H A P T E R

1NonverbalCommunication:Basic Perspectives

Herr von Osten purchased a horse in Berlin in 1900. When von Osten began tring his horse, Hans, to count by tapping his front hoof, he had no idea that Hwould soon become one of the most celebrated horses in history. Hans was a rlearner and soon progressed from counting to adding, multiplying, dividing, tracting, and eventually solving problems involving factors and fractions. Emore startling, when von Osten exhibited Hans to public audiences, he counthe size of the crowd or the number wearing eyeglasses. Responding only taps, Hans could tell time, use a calendar, recall musical pitch, and perform numous other seemingly fantastic feats. After von Osten taught Hans an alphabet

could be coded into hoofbeats, the horse could answer virtually any questiooral or written. It seemed that Hans, a common horse, had complete compresion of the German language, the ability to produce the equivalent of words numerals, and an intelligence beyond that of many human beings.

Even without promotion by the mass media, the word spread quickly, Hans became known throughout the world. He was soon dubbed Clever HaBecause of the profound implications for several scientific fields, and because sskeptics thought a gimmick was involved, an investigating committee was eslished to decide whether deceit tainted Hanss performances. Professors of psycogy and physiology, the director of the Berlin Zoological Garden, a director circus, veterinarians, and cavalry officers were appointed to this commission

experiment with Hans from which von Osten was absent demonstrated no chain the apparent intelligence of the horse. This was sufficient proof for the comsion to announce that no trickery was involved.

But the appointment of a second commission was the beginning of the endClever Hans. Von Osten was asked to whisper a number into the horse s leftwhile another experimenter whispered a number into the horses right ear. Hwas told to add the two numbersan answer none of the onlookers, von Os

Those of us who keep our eyes open can read volumes into whatwe see going on around us.

E. T. Hall




4/31

or the experimenter knew. Hans failed. And with further tests, he continued to fail.The experimenter, Pfungst, had discovered that Hans could answer a question onlyif someone in his visual field knew the answer and was attentive to the situation(Pfungst, 1911/1965).

When Hans was given the question, onlookers who knew the answer assumedan expectant posture, increased their body tension, and bent their heads slightly

forward. When Hans reached the correct number of taps, the onlookers would re-lax and make a slight upward movement of their heads, which was Hanss signalto stop tapping. Evidence suggested that Hans could detect head movements asslight as one-fifth of a millimeter. Subsequent experiments found that Hans alsowould cease tapping as a knowledgeable onlooker raised his or her eyebrows oreven showed a dilation of the nostrils.

The story of Clever Hans functions as a vivid introduction to the field of non-verbal communication (Sebeok & Rosenthal, 1981; Sebeok & Umiker-Sebeok,1980). Hanss cleverness was not in his ability to verbalize or understand verbalcommands but in his ability to respond to almost imperceptible and unconsciousmovements by those surrounding him (Spitz, 1997). A French horse named CleverBertrand may have developed his cleverness from entirely different but equally sub-tle signals, although he was not studied scientifically. It is reported that Bertrandcould do everything that Hans could dobut Bertrand was blind! Indeed, some ofthe experiments with Hans had also shown that when auditory cues were added to thevisual, Hanss accuracy increased. So Hanss cleverness was not limited to visual cues.

The story of Clever Hans makes two important points regarding the role ofnonverbal behavior in human encounters:

1. While we are in the presence of another person, we are constantly givingsignals about our attitudes, feelings, and personality.

2. Others may become particularly adept at sensing and interpreting these signals.

This ability is not unlike the perceptiveness or sensitivity to nonverbal cues exhibitedby a Clever Carl, Christine, Frank, or Harriet when closing a business deal, present-ing an intelligent and industrious image to a professor, knowing when to leave aparty, and acting wisely in many other common situations. We also make interpreta-tions about the absence of cues, as well as reacting to particular cues. For example,when a nephew does not get his usual greeting kiss from his favorite aunt, he won-ders what is wrong. (Perhaps he never noticed the kiss nearly as much as he noticesits absence.) As another example, when a doctor tries to act professionally neutralby being somewhat blank and unexpressive, the patient is likely to read the lack ofcues as aloofness or disinterest, perhaps even suspecting the doctor of withholdingimportant information. This is a good example of how what we think we are com-municating may be very different from what we are actually communicating.

The purpose of this book is to expand your conscious awareness of the numer-ous nonverbal stimuli that you produce and confront in everyday dialogue. Eachchapter summarizes behavioral science research in a specific area of nonverbalcommunication. First, however, let us develop five basic perspectives throughwhich we can view the remaining chapters:

1. Defining nonverbal communication2. Classifying nonverbal behavior

4 part i an introduction to the study of nonverbal communication




5/31

3. Nonverbal communication in the total communication process4. The history of nonverbal studies5. Nonverbal communication in everyday life

PERSPECTIVE 1: DEFINING NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

To most people, the phrase nonverbal communication refers to communicaeffected by means other than words, assuming words are the verbal element. Lmost definitions, this one is generally useful, but it does not account adequafor the complexity of this phenomenon. As long as we understand and apprecthe points listed here, this broad definition should serve us well.

First, we need to understand that separating verbal and nonverbal behainto two separate and distinct categories is virtually impossible. Consider, forample, the hand movements that make up American Sign Language, a languagthe deaf. These gesticulations are mostly linguistic (verbal), yet hand gesturesoften considered behavior that is other than words. McNeill (1992) dem

strated the linguistic qualities of some gestures by noting that different kinds oftures disappear with different kinds of aphasiathe impairment of the abilituse or comprehend wordsnamely, those gestures with linguistic functions simto the specific verbal loss. Conversely, not all spoken words are clearly or sinlarly verbal; for example, onomatopoeic words, such asbuzzormurmur,and npropositional speech used by auctioneers and some aphasics.

We also need to understand that our definition does not indicate whetherphrase by means other than words refers to the type of signal producedis, itsencodingor to the perceivers code for interpreting the symbol, its decodGenerally, when people refer to nonverbal behavior, they are talking about thenals produced, or encoded, to which meaning will be attributed, not the proces

attributing meaning. A first step toward understanding the process of attribumeaning to nonverbal behavior is to understand how the brain processes nonvestimuli.

Processing Nonverbal Information

Currently, many brain researchers believe that the two hemispheres of the bprocess different types of information, but each hemisphere does not process type exclusively. Nonverbal messages may be processed by either hemisphere ethough the bulk of the work is probably done by the right side. The left hemispprocesses mainly sequentially ordered, digital, verbal, and linguistic informa

Nonverbal messages processed by the left hemisphere may involve symbolic tures and facial expressions that have a closely linked verbal translation; for exple, the speech-independent gestures noted in Chapter 7. The right hemispherthe brain is normally credited with processing visual/spatial relationships and logic, or Gestalt, information; and it seems to be the main processing areasome types of gestures and spontaneous, expressive displays of emotion in the and voice (Buck & VanLear, 2002; Kelly & Goldsmith, 2004). It is importannote, however, that few scientists currently believe that either side of the b

chapter 1 nonverbal communication: basic perspectives




6/31

deals exclusively with a particular kind of information. In fact, the following caseillustrates how adaptable the brain can be.

Bruce Lipstadt had the left hemisphere of his brain removed when he was5 years old (Koutlak, 1976). Few doctors had hope for the development of his ver-bal ability, and most thought the operation would paralyze part of his body.Twenty-six years later, Bruce had an IQ of 126better than 9 out of 10 people.

He swam, rode his bike, and got an A in a statistics course. Because his speechwas normal, it was assumed the right side took over many of the functions for-merly conducted mainly by the left side. Obviously, this does not always happenas a result of operations of this type, especially after puberty. It does suggest thatalthough the right and left hemispheres seem to specialize in processing certaininformation, they are by no means limited to processing only one type.

Even when information is being processed primarily by one hemisphere, it isunlikely that the other hemisphere is totally inactive. While someone is reading astory, the right hemisphere may be playing a specialized role in understanding ametaphor or appreciating emotional content, while the left side simultaneouslyworks harder at deriving meaning from the complex relations among word con-cepts and syntax. The different functions of the two brain hemispheres do notseem as clearly differentiated in women as in men, and some left-handed peopleare known to have hemispheric functions the opposite of those described (Andersen,Garrison, & Andersen, 1979; Iaccino, 1993).

Despite the apparent complexity demonstrated by the brain, much of what isprocessed by the right hemisphere seems to be what we call nonverbal phenomena,and much of what is processed by the left hemisphere is what we categorize asverbal phenomena. Obviously, some nonverbal behavior is more closely alignedwith verbal behavior than others (e.g., speech-independent gestures, which we willdiscuss in Chapter 7), and we might expect more left-hemispheric activity in suchcases.

Awareness and Control

Thus far, our definition has not addressed the issue of whether the nonverbal beha-viors we enact are done with a great deal of awareness or not. Nonverbal behavior,like verbal behavior, is encoded with varying degrees of control and awareness(Lakin, 2006). Sometimes human beings have time to plan their responses, but agreat deal of information impinges on their senses, and sometimes it is extremelyimportant to respond rapidly. When this occurs, people are either unaware, oronly dimly aware, of why they responded as they did. These responses are linkedto a cognitive program that takes place immediately and automatically following

the perception of a particular stimulus (Choi, Gray, & Ambady, 2005).When we use speech-independent gestures, pose for photographs, or select ourattire, a high level of awareness and control is usually present. We know what weare doing; we take time to respond, and we enact our behavior according to a con-scious plan. Nervous mannerisms, pupil dilation, and mimicking the behavior ofan interaction partner are examples of behavior that are often enacted outside ofour awareness and control. We may even have an entire array of default verbal





7/31

and nonverbal behaviors that kick in automatically when, for example, weintroduced to a stranger. We may enact a given behavior without much awareon some occasions but may do so with a great deal of awareness at other timFor example, we may not realize our tone of voice is signaling our dislike fperson we are talking to, but we are very much aware of using our voice to cmunicate a sarcastic message.

Decoding nonverbal behavior also may be performed with varying degreeawareness. Sometimes we perceive a stimulus, such as a man who looks elderly,this automatically triggers the perception that the man is also walking slowwhether he is or not. When people say they think a person is lying but canexplain what behaviors led them to believe that, it may mean there is an of-awareness program in their brain that is associated with the deception and tgered by the perception of certain behaviors.

But responses that are out of our awareness and control need not alwaythat way. Feedback on the accuracy or utility of an automatic process may leachanging the program or eliminating it. Reading this book may also make more aware of certain behaviors you have been encoding and decoding.

PERSPECTIVE 2: CLASSIFYING NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR

Another way of defining nonverbal communication is to look at the things pestudy. The theory and research associated with nonverbal communication focuthree primary units: the environmental structures and conditions within wcommunication takes place, the physical characteristics of the communicathemselves, and the various behaviors manifested by the communicators. A detabreakdown of these three features follows.

The Communication EnvironmentPhysical Environment Although most of the emphasis in nonverbal researcon the appearance and behavior of the people communicating, increasing attenis being given to the influence of nonhuman factors on human transactiPeople change environments to help them accomplish their communicative goconversely, environments can affect our moods, choices of words, and actiThus, this category concerns those elements that impinge on the human relatship but are not directly a part of it. Environmental factors include the furnitarchitectural style, interior decorating, lighting conditions, colors, temperaadditional noises or music, and so on amid which the interaction occ

Variations in arrangements, materials, shapes, or surfaces of objects in the inacting environment can be extremely influential on the outcome of an intersonal relationship. This category also includes what might be called traceaction. For instance, as you observe cigarette butts, orange peels, and wastepleft by the person you will soon interact with, you form an impression that eventually influence your meeting. Perceptions of time and timing make upother important part of the communicative environment. When something occ





8/31

how frequently it occurs, and the tempos or rhythms of actions are clearly a partof the communicative world even though they are not a part of the physical envi-ronment per se.

Spatial Environment Proxemics is the study of the use and perception of socialand personal space. Under this heading is a body of work called small group

ecology,which concerns itself with how people use and respond to spatial relation-ships in formal and informal group settings. Such studies deal with seating andspatial arrangements as related to leadership, communication flow, and the task athand. On an even broader level, some attention has been given to spatial relation-ships in crowds and densely populated situations. Personal space orientation issometimes studied in the context of conversation distance and how it variesaccording to sex, status, roles, cultural orientation, and so forth. The term territo-riality is also used frequently in the study of proxemics to denote the human ten-dency to stake out personal territory, or untouchable space, much as wildanimals and birds do.

The Communicators Physical Characteristics

This category covers things that remain relatively unchanged during the period ofinteraction. They are influential nonverbal cues that are not visibly movementbound. Included are physique or body shape, general attractiveness, height, weight,hair, skin color or tone, and so forth. Body or breath odors associated with theperson are normally considered part of a persons physical appearance. Further,objects associated with the interactants also may affect their physical appearance.These are called artifacts and include such things as clothes, eyeglasses, hairpieces,false eyelashes, jewelry, piercings, and accessories such as attach cases. Physicalappearance also includes the various ways people choose to decorate their skin;

for example, with tattoos, cosmetics, scars, brands, and paint.

Body Movement and Position

Body movement and position typically include gestures; movements of the limbs,hands, head, feet, and legs; facial expressions, such as smiles; eye behavior, includ-ing blinking, direction and length of gaze, and pupil dilation; and posture. The fur-row of the brow, the slump of a shoulder, and the tilt of a head are all consideredbody movements and positions. Specifically, the major areas are gestures, posture,touching behavior, facial expressions, and eye behavior.

Gestures There are many different types of gestures, and many variations ofthese types, but the most frequently studied are the following:

1. Speech independent. When viewed independently of speech, these gestureshave a well-known verbal translation in their usage community, usually con-sisting of a word or two or a phrase. The gestures used to represent Okayor Peace (also the V-for-Victorysign) are examples of speech-independentgestures for large segments of U.S. culture.





9/31

2. Speech related. These gestures are directly tied to, or accompany, speech aoften serve to illustrate what is being said verbally. These movements maycent or emphasize a word or phrase, sketch a path of thought, point to preobjects, depict a spatial relationship, depict the rhythm or pacing of an evedraw a picture of a referent, depict a bodily action, or serve as commentaron the regulation and organization of the interactive process.

Posture Posture is normally studied in conjunction with other nonverbal sigto determine the degree of attention or involvement, the degree of status relato the other interactive partner, or the degree of liking for the other interactanforward-leaning posture, for example, has been associated with higher invoment, more liking, and lower status in studies where the interactants didknow each other very well. Posture is also a key indicator of the intensity of semotional states; for example, the drooping posture associated with sadness orrigid, tense posture associated with anger. The extent to which the communicamirror each others posture may indicate conversational involvement, which sotimes results in greater rapport between the interactants.

Touching Behavior Touching may be self-focused or other-focused. Self-focmanipulations, not usually made for purposes of communicating, may reflepersons particular state or habit. Many are commonly called nervous manneriSome of these actions are relics from an earlier time in life, when we first learhow to manage our emotions, develop social contacts, or perform some insttional task. Sometimes we perform these manipulations as we adapt to such leing experiences, and they stay with us when we face similar situations later inoften as only part of the original movement. Some refer to these types of focused manipulation as adaptors. These adaptors may involve various maniptions of ones own body such as licking, picking, holding, pinching, and scratchObject adaptors are manipulations practiced in conjunction with an objectwhen a reformed cigarette smoker reaches toward his breast pocket for the nonistent package of cigarettes. Of course, not all behaviors that reflect habitualtions or an anxious disposition can be traced to earlier adaptations, but theyrepresent a part of the overall pattern of bodily action.

One of the most potent forms of nonverbal communication occurs when people touch. Touch can be virtually electric, but it also can irritate or comfTouch is a highly ambiguous form of behavior whose meaning often takes mfrom the context, the nature of the relationship, and the manner of execution tfrom the configuration of the touch per se. Some researchers are concerned wtouching behavior as an important factor in a childs early development, and otare concerned with adult touching behavior.

Facial Expressions Most studies of the face are concerned with the configuratthat display various emotional states. The six primary affects that receive the mstudy are anger, sadness, surprise, happiness, fear, and disgust. Facial expressalso can function as regulatory gestures, providing feedback and managingflow of interaction. In fact, some researchers believe the primary function offace is to communicate, not to express emotions.





10/31

Eye Behavior Where we look, when we look, and how long we look during aninteraction are the primary foci for studies of gazing. Gaze refers to the eye move-ment we make in the general direction of anothers face. Mutual gaze occurs wheninteractants look into each others eye area. The dilation and constriction of thepupils is of particular interest to those who study nonverbal communication, be-cause it is sometimes an indicator of interest, attention, or involvement.

Vocal Behavior Vocal behavior deals with how something is said, not what issaid. It deals with the range of nonverbal vocal cues surrounding common speechbehavior. Generally, a distinction is made between two types of sounds:

1. The sound variations made with the vocal cords during speech that are afunction of changes in pitch, duration, loudness, and silence

2. Sounds that result primarily from physiological mechanisms other than thevocal cords; for example, the pharyngeal, oral, or nasal cavities

Most of the research on vocal behavior and its effects on human interaction hasfocused on pitch level and variability; the duration of sounds, whether they areclipped or drawn out; pauses within the speech stream and the latency of responseduring turn exchanges; loudness level and variability; resonance; precise or slurredarticulation; rate; rhythm; and intruding sounds during speech, such as uh orum.The study of vocal signals encompasses a broad range of interests, from ques-tions focusing on stereotypes associated with certain voices to questions about theeffects of vocal behavior on comprehension and persuasion. Thus even specializedsounds such as laughing, belching, yawning, swallowing, moaning, and the like maybe of interest to the extent that they may affect the outcome of interaction.

PERSPECTIVE 3: NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN

THE TOTAL COMMUNICATION PROCESSEven though this book emphasizes nonverbal communication, it is important not toforget the inseparable nature of verbal and nonverbal signals. Ray Birdwhistell, apioneer in nonverbal research, reportedly said that studying only nonverbal com-munication is like studying noncardiac physiology. His point is well taken. It isnot easy to dissect human interaction and make one diagnosis that concerns onlyverbal behavior and another that concerns only nonverbal behavior. The verbal di-mension is so intimately woven and subtly represented in so much of what hasbeen previously labeled nonverbal that the term does not always adequately de-scribe the behavior under study. Some of the most noteworthy scholars associated

with nonverbal study refuse to segregate words from gestures, hence these scholarswork under the broader terms of communication or face-to-face interaction(Bavelas & Chovil, 2006). Kendon (1983, pp. 17, 20) puts it this way:

It is a common observation that, when a person speaks, muscular systems besides thoseof the lips, tongue, and jaws often become active. . . . Gesticulation is organized as partof the same overall unit of action by which speech is also organized. . . . Gestureand speech are available as two separate modes of representation and are coordinated





11/31

because both are being guided by the same overall aim. That aim is to produce apattern of action that will accomplish the representation of a meaning.

Because verbal and nonverbal systems operate together as part of the larger cmunication process, efforts to distinguish clearly between the two have not bvery successful. One common misconception, for example, assumes that nonvebehavior is used solely to communicate emotional messages, whereas verbal beh

ior is for conveying ideas. Words can carry much emotionwe can talk expliabout emotions, and we also communicate emotion between the lines in venuances. Conversely, nonverbal cues are often used for purposes other than shing emotion; for example, people in conversation use eye movements to helpeach other when it is time to switch speaking turns, and people commonlyhand gestures while talking to help convey their ideas (McNeill, 2000).

We also need to recognize that the ways we attribute meaning to verbal nonverbal behavior are not all that different either. Nonverbal actions, like bal ones, may communicate more than one message at a time. For exampleway you nonverbally make it clear to another person that you want to talking may simultaneously express your need for dominance over that pe

and may also express your emotional state. When you grip a childs shou

during a reprimand, you may increase comprehension and recall, but you also elicit such a negative reaction that the child fails to obey. A smile cana part of an emotional expression, an attitudinal message, a self-presentaor a listener response to manage the interaction. And, like verbal behavior,meanings attributed to nonverbal behavior may be stereotyped, idiomaticambiguous. Furthermore, the same nonverbal behavior performed in diffecontexts may, like words, receive different attributions of meaning. For examlooking down at the floor may reflect sadness in one situation and submisness or lack of involvement in another. Finally, in an effort to identify the damental categories of meaning associated with nonverbal behavior, Mehra

(1970, 1981) identified a threefold perspective resulting from his extentesting:

1. Immediacy. Sometimes we react to things by evaluating them as positive onegative, good or bad, and so on.

2. Status. Sometimes we enact or perceive behaviors that indicate various aspof status to us, such as strong or weak, superior or subordinate.

3. Responsiveness. This third category refers to our perceptions of activity asbeing slow or fast, active or passive.

In various verbal and nonverbal studies over the past three decades, dimenssimilar to Mehrabians have been reported consistently by investigators f

diverse fields studying diverse phenomena. It is reasonable to conclude, therefthat these three dimensions are basic responses to our environment and areflected in the way we assign meaning to both verbal and nonverbal behaMost of this work, however, depends on people translating their reactions nonverbal act into verbal descriptors. This issue has already been addressed indiscussion of the way the brain processes different pieces of information. In eral, then, like words, nonverbal signals can and do have multiple uses





12/31

meanings; like words, nonverbal signals have denotative and connotative meanings;and like words, nonverbal signals play an active role in communicating liking,power, and responsiveness. With these in mind, we can now examine some of theimportant ways verbal and nonverbal behaviors interrelate during human interac-tion. Ekman (1965) identified the following: repeating, conflicting, complementing,substituting, accenting/moderating, and regulating.

Repeating

Nonverbal communication can simply repeat what was said verbally. For instance,if you told a person he or she had to go north to find a parking place and thenpointed in the proper direction, this would be repetition.

Conflicting

Verbal and nonverbal signals can be at variance with one another in a variety of

ways. They may communicate two contradictory messages or two messages thatseem incongruous with one another (see Figure 1-1). In both instances, two mes-sages that do not appear to be consistent with one another are perceived. It is quitecommon, and probably functional, to have mixed feelings about some things. As aresult, incongruous verbal and nonverbal messages may be more common than werealize. But it is the more dramatic contradictions we are more likely to notice.Perhaps it is the parent who yells to his or her child in an angry voice, Of courseI love you! Or the public speaker, who, with trembling hands and knees andbeads of perspiration on the brow, claims, Im not nervous.

Figure 1-1 |(a) Conflicting verbal/nonverbal signals. (b) Is this an aggressive or playful situation? What observations

influenced your decision?

a b





13/31

Why do these conflicting messages occur? In some cases it is a natural respoto a situation in which communicators perceive themselves in a bind. They dowant to tell the truth, and they do not want to lie. As a result, their ambivaleand frustration produce a discrepant message (Bavelas, Black, Chovil, & Mul1990). In other situations, conflicting messages occur because people do an imfect job of lying. Suppose you have just given a terrible presentation, and you

me how you did. I may say you did fine, but my voice, face, and body maysupport my words. On still other occasions, conflicting messages may be the reof an attempt to communicate sarcasm or irony, saying one thing with words the opposite with vocal tone and/or facial expression. The term coy is used toscribe the display of coexisting signals that invite friendly contact with those signal rejection and withdrawal. We live in a complex world, which makes feelof ambivalence or mixed emotions a much more common experience thansometimes acknowledge (Weigert, 1991).

Displays of incongruous or conflicting signals may occur in a variety of wSometimes two nonverbal signals may manifest the discord (e.g., vocal with visbut usually we are more aware of the contrasting verbal and nonverbal sig(e.g., positive voice/negative words, negative voice/positive words, positive negative words, or negative face/positive words).

When confronted with conflicting messages that matter to us, how do weact? Leathers (1979) has identified a common three-step process:

1. The first reaction is confusion and uncertainty.2. Next, we search for additional information that will clarify the situation.3. If clarification is not forthcoming, we will probably react with displeasure

hostility, or even withdrawal.

It is not unusual for a person perceiving a conflicting message that is ambiguourespond with an ambiguous message. Some believe that a constant barrage of cflicting and ambiguous messages can contribute to a psychopathology inreceiver. This may be particularly true when the communicators have a close rtionship and the target of the conflicting messages has no one else he or she turn to for discussion and possible clarification of the confusing messages. Sresearch finds that parents of disturbed children produce more messages with cflicting cues (Bugental, Love, Kaswan, & April, 1971). Other work suggests the differences are not in conflicting cues but in negative messages; that is, parwith disturbed children send more negative messages (Beakel & Mehrabian, 19The combination of negativity, confusion, and punishment can be very harmfulis a common style of communication directed toward children. Date rape is anosituation in which testimony often centers around the extent to which the signarejection were unequivocal or ambiguous.

We do not wish to give the impression that all forms of discrepant messaare harmful. Our daily conversations are probably peppered with instances in wgestures and speech do not exactly match one another; for example, a speaker ing a story about someone climbing up a pipe while simultaneously gesturinthough he or she were climbing a ladder (McNeill, Cassell, & McCullough, 19Sometimes these discrepancies go unnoticed, and many are cognitively resolvwithout overtly discussing the mismatch. Even contradictions with more impor





14/31

implications for the conversants may not, in some situations, be considered harm-ful. Moreover, as stated earlier, discrepancy is requiredfor achieving certain effects.Sarcasm, for example, occurs when the words are pleasant and the voice quality isunpleasant; and when our words are unpleasant but the tone of voice is pleasant,we are likely to communicate the message that we are only joking.

Finally, some discrepancies may be helpful in certain situations. In an experi-

ment, teachers used mixed messages while teaching a lesson to sixth-grade pupils.When the teachers combined positive words with a negative nonverbal demeanor,pupils learned more than with any other combination (Woolfolk, 1978). Similarly,a study of doctors talking with patients found that the combination of positivewords said in a negative voice tone was associated with the highest levels of patientsatisfaction with the visit (Hall, Roter, & Rand, 1981). Possibly the positive verbal/negative nonverbal combination is perceived in classrooms and doctors offices asserious and concernedand therefore makes a better impression.

Some research has questioned whether we trust and believe nonverbal signalsmore than verbal ones when we are confronted with conflicting messages (Bugental,1974; Mehrabian, 1972; Stiff, Hale, Garlick, & Rogan, 1990; Burgoon, 1980). It isoften assumed that nonverbal signals are more spontaneous, harder to fake, lesslikely to be manipulated, and hence more believable. It is probably more accurate tosay, however, that some nonverbal behaviors are more spontaneous and harder tofake than others and that some people are more proficient than others at nonverbaldeception. With two conflicting cues, both of which are nonverbal, we predictablyplace our reliance on the cues we consider harder to fake. One research team foundthat people tended to rely primarily on visual cues in visual/auditory discrepancies,but when the discrepancy was great, people tended to rely on the audio signals(DePaulo, Rosenthal, Eisenstat, Rogers, & Finkelstein, 1978).

The credibility of information in messages made up of conflicting signals is alsoan important factor in determining which cues to believe. If the information beingcommunicated in one channel lacks credibility, we are likely to discount it andlook to other channels for the real message (Bugental, 1974). Sometimes we arefaced with the difficult dilemma of perceiving the meaning communicated by hard-to-fake cues that do not seem credible. If a person says, This is really great, witha sad tone of voice upon receiving a gift you know was long desired, you are likely tosearch for other explanations; for example, something else may be bothering the person.

Interestingly, young children seem to give less credence to certain nonverbalcues than adults do when confronted with conflicting verbal and nonverbal mes-sages (Bugental, Kaswan, Love, & Fox, 1970; Bugental, Love, & Gianetto, 1971;Volkmar & Siegel, 1982). Conflicting messages in which the speaker smiled whilemaking a critical statement were interpreted more negatively by children thanadults, particularly when the speaker was a woman.

Other work casts a deeper shadow on the theory that we always rely on non-verbal cues in conflicting-message situations. Shapiro (1968) found that studentjudges differed as to whether they relied on verbal or facial cues when asked to se-lect the affect being communicated by incongruent sketched faces accompanied bywritten messages. Vande Creek and Watkins (1972) extended Shapiros work byusing real voices and moving pictures. The people in the stimulus examples





15/31

portrayed inconsistencies in the degree of stress in verbal and nonverbal channAgain, they found that some respondents tended to rely primarily on verbal csome tended to rely on nonverbal cues, and some responded to the degree of stin general regardless of the channels manifesting it. The cross-cultural researcSolomon and Ali (1975) suggests that familiarity with the verbal language mayfect our reliance on verbal or nonverbal cues. They found, for instance, that pe

who were less familiar with the language used to construct the contradictory msage relied on the content for judgments of affective meaning. Those who kthe language well were more apt to rely on the vocal intonation for the affecmeaning. So it appears that some people will rely more heavily on the verbal msage when verbal and nonverbal cues give conflicting information.

We do not know all the conditions that affect which signals people look tovalid information. As a general rule, people tend to rely on those signals perceive harder to fake, but this will most likely vary with the situation; so the mate impact of verbal, visual, and vocal signals is best determined by a close exination of the people involved and the communication context.

ComplementingNonverbal behavior can modify or elaborate on verbal messages. When the veand nonverbal channels are complementary, rather than conflicting, our messare usually decoded more accurately. Some evidence suggests that complemennonverbal signals also may be helpful when attempting to recall the verbal msage. A student who reflects an attitude of embarrassment when talking professor about a poor performance in class assignments is exhibiting nonvebehavior that complements the verbal. When clarity is of utmost importance, aa job interview or when making up with a loved one after a fight, we shoulespecially concerned with making the meanings of verbal and nonverbal behacomplement one another.

Substituting

Nonverbal behavior can also substitute for verbal messages. It may indicate mpermanent characteristics (sex, age), moderately long-lasting features (personaattitudes, social group), and relatively short-term states. In the latter case, we see a dejected and downtrodden executive walk into his or her house after wwith a facial expression that substitutes for the statement Ive had a rotten dWith a little practice, people soon learn to identify a wide range of these substinonverbal displaysall the way from Its been a fantastic day!to Oh, GodI miserable!

Sometimes, when substitute nonverbal behavior does not get the desiredsponse, the communicator tries to verbally clarify the message. Considerwoman who wants her date to stop trying to become physically intimate with She may stiffen, stare straight ahead, or act unresponsive and cool. If the suitordoes not stop, she might say something like Look, Larry, please dont ruin a friendship.





16/31

Accenting and Moderating

Nonverbal behavior may accent (amplify) or moderate (tone down) parts of theverbal message. Accenting is much like underlining or italicizingwritten words toemphasize them. Movements of the head and hands are frequently used to accentthe verbal message. When a father scolds his son for staying out too late, he mayaccent a particular phrase with a firm grip on the sons shoulder and an accompa-

nying frown. In some instances, one set of nonverbal cues can accent or moderateother nonverbal cues. For example, by observing other parts of a persons body,the full intensity of a facial expression of emotion is revealed.

Regulating

Nonverbal behavior is also used to regulate verbal behavior. We do this in twoways:

1. By coordinating our own verbal and nonverbal behavior in the productionof our messages

2. By coordinating our verbal and nonverbal message behavior with those ofour interaction partners

We regulate the production of our own messages in a variety of ways.Sometimes we use nonverbal signs to segment units of interaction. Posture changesmay demarcate a topic change; a gesture may forecast the verbalization of a partic-ular idea; pauses may help organize spoken information into units. When we speakof a series of things, we may communicate discreteness by linear, staccato move-ments of the arm and hand; for example, We must consider A, B, and C. Whenwe insert a chopping gesture after each letter, it may suggest a separate consider-ation of each letter; a single chop after C might indicate either a consideration ofall three as a group, or it may indicate C in particular.

We also regulate the flow of verbal and nonverbal behavior between ourselvesand an interactant. This may manifest itself in the type of behavior two interactantselicit from one another (e.g., every time one person gets mad and yells, the otherbehaves in a solicitous manner) or in less obvious ways (e.g., the signals of initia-tion, continuation, and termination of interaction). The way one person stops talk-ing and another starts in a smooth, synchronized manner may be as important to asatisfactory interaction as the content. After all, we do make judgments aboutpeople based on their regulatory skills; for example, we are familiar with the de-scriptions Talking to him is like talking to a wall or You cant get a word inedgewise with her. When another person frequently interrupts or is inattentive,we may feel this person is making a statement about the relationship, perhaps oneof disrespect. There are rules for regulating conversations, but they are generallyimplicit. It is not written down, but we seem to know that two people should nottalk at the same time, that each person should get an equal number of turns at talk-ing if he or she desires, that a question should be answered, and so forth.Wiemanns (1977) research found that relatively minute changes in these regulatorybehaviorsinterruptions, pauses longer than three seconds, unilateral topic changes,





17/31

and so onresulted in sizable variations in how competent a communicator perceived to be. As listeners, we are apparently attending to and evaluating a of fleeting, subtle, and habitual features of the speaker s conversational behavWhen children first learn these rules, they use less subtle cues; for example, ttug on clothing, raise a hand, and so on. Children are also less skilled in accplishing smooth turn taking, as you will have noticed if you have conversed wi

young child on the telephone. There are probably differences in the actual bviors used to manage conversational flow across cultures.Conversational regulators involve several kinds of nonverbal cues. When

want to indicate that we are finished speaking and the other person can startmay increase our eye contact with the other person. This is often accompaniethe vocal cues associated with ending declarative or interrogative statements. Iother person still does not figuratively pick up the conversational ball, we mextend silence or interject a trailersuch as you knowor so, ah.To keepother person from speaking in a conversation, we have to keep long pauses foccurring, decrease eye contact, and perhaps raise the volume if the other triespeak. When we do not want to take a speaking turn, we might give the osome reinforcing head nods, maintain attentive eye contact, and, of course, reffrom speaking when the other begins to yield. When we do want the floormight raise our index finger or enact an audible inspiration of breath wistraightening of the posture as if ready to take over. Rapid nodding may signaother to hurry up and finish; but if we have trouble getting in, we may have to simultaneously for a few words or engage in stutter starts that we hope wilmore easily observed cues to signal our desire to speak.

Conversational beginnings and endings also act as regulatory points. Whenare greeting others, eye contact indicates that the channels are open. A slight hmovement and an eyebrow flash of recognitiona barely detectable but distup-and-down movement of the eyebrowsmay be present. The hands are used in greetings for salutes, waves, handshakes, handslaps, or emblematic sigsuch as the peace or victory sign, a raised fist, or a thumbs-up. Hands may perform grooming activities, such as running fingers through the hair, or they be involved in various touching activities such as kissing, embracing, or hittingother on the arm. The mouth may form a smile or an oval shape, as if readstart talking (Krivonos & Knapp, 1975).

Saying good-bye in semiformal interviews was shown in one study to emany nonverbal behaviors. The most common included the breaking of eye conmore often and for longer periods of time, positioning ones body toward an and leaning forward and nodding. Less frequent, but very noticeable, were accing behaviors that signaled, This is the termination of our conversation, I dont want you to miss it! These accenters included explosive hand and movements, such as raising the hands and/or feet and bringing them down withough force to make an audible slap while simultaneously using the hands andas leverage to catapult the interactant out of his or her seat. A less direct manifetion was placing hands on thighs or knees in a leveraging position, as if prepato catapult, hoping that the other person picked up the good-bye cue (Knapp, HFriedrich, & Shulman, 1975).





18/31

PERSPECTIVE 4: THE HISTORY OF NONVERBAL STUDIES

The scientific study of nonverbal communication is primarily a post-World War IIactivity. This does not mean we cannot find important early tributaries of knowl-edge; even ancient Chinese, Greek, and Roman scholars commented on what wetoday would consider nonverbal behavior. Quintilians Institutio Oratoria, for ex-ample, is an important source of information on gesture written in the first century.

If we were to trace the history of fields of studysuch as animal behavior, anthro-pology, dance, linguistics, philosophy, psychiatry, psychology, sociology, andspeechwe would no doubt find important antecedents for todays work(Asendorpf & Wallbott, 1982; Davis, 1979; DePaulo & Friedman, 1998; Hecht &Ambady, 1999). Nonverbal studies never have been the province of any one partic-ular discipline. In the last half of the 19th century, Delsarte among others at-tempted to codify and set forth rules for managing both voice culture and bodymovements or gestures (Shawn, 1954). Although Delsartes science of applied es-thetics and the elocutionary movement gave way to a less formal, less stylizedmanner in the 20th century, it represents one of several early attempts to identifyvarious forms of bodily expression. One of the most influential pre-20th-century

works was Darwins Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals in 1872.This work spawned the modern study of facial expressions, and many of Darwinsobservations and ideas have been validated by other researchers (Ekman, 1973).

During the first half of the 20th century, there were isolated studies of thevoice, physical appearance and dress, and the face. An unsystematic look at thepublications during this period suggests that studies of proxemics, the environment,and body movement received even less attention, and the least attention was givento the investigation of eye behavior and touching. Two distinct but noteworthyevents occurred during this period: The first involved some controversial scholar-ship and a scandal; the second concerned a work of extraordinary influence in thestudy of nonverbal behavior.

In 1925, Kretschmer authored a book, Physique and Character. This was fol-lowed in 1940 by Sheldons book The Variations of Human Physique. Theseworks were based on the idea that if we precisely measure and analyze a personsbody, we can learn much about his or her intelligence, temperament, moral worth,and future achievement. Sheldons belief that certain characteristics are associatedwith certain body typesthe thin ectomorph, the muscular mesomorph, and thefatty endomorphis still debated (see Chapter 6). His work was featured on thecover of the popular magazine Life in 1951. To develop a catalogue of body types,Sheldon was permitted to photograph freshman students in the nude at Yale,Wellesley, Vassar, Princeton, Smith, Mt. Holyoke, and other colleges (Rosenbaum,1995). The students were told it was a project involving posture, and thousands

compliedincluding future president George H. W. Bush and future first ladyHillary Rodham Clinton. The photos have reportedly been destroyed, and Sheldonspersonal notes have revealed him as drawing racial conclusions from his work.People continue to associate certain characteristics with different body types, but thevalidity of these perceptions was not proven by Sheldon or any researchers since.

In contrast, Efrons bookGesture and Environment(1941) has become a classicbecause it made three important contributions: Efrons innovative and detailed





19/31

methods of studying gesture and body language, along with his framework for clfying nonverbal behavior, influenced future generations of scholars. In addiEfrons work documented the important role of culture in shaping our gesturesbody movement, which at the time was contrary to the belief of manyincluAdolf Hitlerthat peoples behavior is not subject to much modification by ching contexts and environments.

The 1950s showed a significant increase in the number of research efforts delved into nonverbal communication. Some of the milestones of the 19included the following:

1. Birdwhistells Introduction to Kinesics appeared in 1952, and Halls SilentLanguagein 1959. These anthropologists were responsible for taking somthe principles of linguistics and applying them to nonverbal phenomena,providing new labels for the study of body movement (kinesics) and space(proxemics), and launching a program of research in each area.

2. Tragers 1958 delineation of the components ofparalanguage (see Chaptergreatly enhanced the precision with which we classify and study vocal cues.

3. Psychiatrist Jurgen Ruesch and photographer Weldon Kees combined their

efforts to produce a popular book titled Nonverbal Communication: Notethe Visual Perception of Human Relationsin 1956. This was probably the book to use the term nonverbal communication in its title. Therapists, incling Freud, had been interested in nonverbal cues prior to the 1950s, but thwork provided additional theoretical insights into the origins, usage, andcoding of nonverbal behavior; it also provided extensive visual documentafor the communicative role of environments.

4. Also in 1956, Maslow and Mintzs study of the environmental effects of abeautiful room and an ugly room was published. This oft-cited studya highlight in the history of environmental forces impinging on humancommunication.

5. Franks comprehensive article Tactile Communication appeared in 1957and suggested a number of testable hypotheses about touching in humaninteraction.

If the 1950s produced an increase in the number of nonverbal studies, the 19must be classified as a nuclear explosion of the topic. Specific areas of the bwere the subject of extensive programs of research: Exlines work on eye behavDavitzs work on vocal expressions of emotion, which culminated in The Comnication of Emotional Meaning in 1964; Hesss work on pupil dilation; Sommcontinued exploration of personal space and design; Goldman-Eislers studpauses and hesitations in spontaneous speech; and the study of a wide rangbody activity by Dittmann, Argyle, Kendon, Scheflen, and Mehrabian. Duringtime, psychologist Robert Rosenthal and his colleagues brought vividly to attention the potential impact of nonverbal subtleties when he showed how expmenters can affect the outcome of experimentsand teachers can affect the inlectual growth of their studentsthrough nonverbal behavior (ExperimeEffects in Behavioral Research, 1966, and Pygmalion in the Classroom, 19Perhaps the classic theoretical piece of the 1960s is Ekman and Friesens articlthe origins, usage, and coding of nonverbal behavior (Ekman & Friesen, 1





20/31

Ekman, 1999). This article distinguished five areas of nonverbal study that servedas a guide for their own research and ultimately that of many other researchers.These areas were emblems, illustrators, affect display, regulators, and adaptors.

The 1970s began with a journalists account of the study of nonverbal commu-nication from the perspective of a handful of researchers. Fasts Body Language(1970), a best seller, was followed by a steady stream of books that attempted to

make nonverbal findings understandable and usable to the American public. Thesebooks, in the interest of simplification and readability, often misrepresented find-ings when recounting how to make a sale, detect deception, assert one s domi-nance, obtain a sexual partner, and so on.

Although such books aroused the publics interest in nonverbal communica-tion, they incurred some anticipated fallout (Koivumaki, 1975). Readers were toooften left with the idea that reading nonverbal cues was the key to success in anyhuman encounter; some of these books implied that single cues (legs apart) repre-sent single meanings (sexual invitation). Not only is it important to look at nonver-balclusters of behavior but also to recognize that nonverbal cues, like verbal ones,rarely have a single denotative meaning. Some of these popularized accounts do notsufficiently remind us that the meaning of a particular behavior is often understoodby looking at the context in which the behavior occurs; for example, looking intosomeones eyes may reflect affection in one situation and aggression in another.

Another common reaction to such books was the concern that once the non-verbal code was broken we would be totally transparent; people would knoweverything about us because we could not control these nonverbal signals. As notedearlier, we have varying degrees of conscious control over our nonverbal behavior.Some behavior is very much under our control; other behavior is not, but it may beonce awareness is increased. Further, it may be that as soon as someone exhibits anunderstanding of your body language, you will modify it and make adaptations.We have been studying verbal behavior for more than 2,000 years, and we knowmuch about the impact of certain verbal strategies; but we are still a long wayfrom understanding the totality of verbal behavior.

The 1970s were also a time of summarizing and synthesizing. Ekmans re-search on the human face (Emotion in the Human Face, 1972, with W. V. Friesenand P. Ellsworth); Mehrabians research on the meaning of nonverbal cues of im-mediacy, status, and responsiveness (Nonverbal Communication, 1972); Scheflenskinesic research in the framework of general systems theory (Body Language andSocial Order, 1972); Hesss study of pupil size (The Tell-Tale Eye, 1975); Argylesstudy of body movement and eye behavior (Bodily Communication, 1975; andGaze and Mutual Gaze, with M. Cook, 1976); Montagus Touching (1971); andBirdwhistells Kinesics and Context (1970) were all attempts to bring together thegrowing literature, or a particular research program, in a single volume.

During the 1980s, some scholars continued to specialize, but others focused onidentifying the ways in which a variety of nonverbal signals work together to ac-complish common communicative goals; for example, getting someone to do some-thing for you, showing affection, lying to someone, and so forth (Patterson, 1983).It became clear that we could not fully understand the role of nonverbal behaviorin accomplishing these goals unless we also looked at the role of co-occurringverbal behavior and tried to develop theories about how various verbal and





21/31

nonverbal cues interact in the process (Bavelas & Chovil, 2006; Kendon, 19Streeck & Knapp, 1992). Thus we are gradually beginning to learn how to putpieces back together after several decades of separating them to examine tmicroscopically. This trend is a manifestation of a larger movement to bring ousearch efforts more in line with the way we know human communication occulifes laboratory (Archer, Akert, & Costanzo, 1993; Knapp, 1984; Patter

1984). Therefore, nonverbal research continues to change in the following way From studying noninteractive situations to studying interactive ones From studying one person to studying both interactants From studying a single point in time to studying changes over time From studying single behaviors to studying multiple behaviors From the view that we perceive everything that occurs to acknowledging t

we need to know more about how people perceive signals during interactio

From single-meaning and single-intent perspectives to acknowledging thatoften multiple meanings occur and multiple goals exist

From a measurement perspective focused almost exclusively on frequency duration to one that also includes issues related to when and how a behav

occurs From attempting to control context by eliminating important and influenti

elements to attempting to account for such effects

From studying only face-to-face interaction to examining the role of nonvemessages in mediated communication with new technologies

From an overemphasis on studying how strangers interact to one equallyconcerned about how intimates interact

From studying only culture or only biology as possible explanations ofbehavior to examining the roles both play

Such a brief historical view inevitably leaves out many important contributions

Knapp, 2006). The preceding discussion is simply our attempt to highlight simportant developments and depict a general background for current perspecti

PERSPECTIVE 5: NONVERBAL COMMUNICATIONIN EVERYDAY LIFE

Clearly, nonverbal signals are a critical part of all our communicative endeavSometimes nonverbal signals are the most important part of our messUnderstanding and effectively using nonverbal behavior is crucial to our succevirtually every social encounter we experience.

First impressions often have a strong impact on any given social interacand can affect subsequent interactions (Ambady & Skowronski, 2008). We know that people can make some valid inferences about others based on theirtial reading of the others nonverbal cues (Hall & Andrzejewski, 2008). Teach interaction begins with both interactants trying to draw accurate infereabout the other and simultaneously trying to manifest the verbal and nonverbahavior that will give them the best impression for accomplishing their communicagoals. This process continues as the interaction unfolds.





22/31

Nonverbal cues like attire, eye gaze, smiling, posture, distance, listener re-sponses, and the like are just as important as choosing the right wordssometimesmore so, as Lieutenant General David McKiernan found out. In June of 2003, theBoston Globe reported that he was taken off the list of possible candidates for thetop leadership position of Army Chief of Staff because Pentagon officials observedbad body language. Apparently, McKiernan was standing with his arms crossed

and did not respond in positive ways during

applause lines

while listening to aspeech given by Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld in Iraq (Austin AmericanStatesman, 2003). Nonverbal messages are no less important in formal job inter-views or in ongoing performance on the job, whether it involves public relations,customer service, marketing, advertising, supervision, or leadership (DePaulo,1992; Hecker & Stewart, 1988; Riggio, 2005). In one study, female job intervie-wees were subjected to a sexually provocative comment. When they respondedwith a fake smile (see Chapter 9) in an effort to get through this difficult situation,males who were likely to engage in sexual harassment perceived these smiles as flirta-tious and the women as desirable. In addition to their inability to accurately decodethese fake smiles, these same men rated nonsmiling women as vulnerable and confused(Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2005).

Some occupations and leadership positions require establishing or implement-ing policies involving nonverbal messages. Some schools and businesses have rulesabout hair length, facial hair, or appropriate clothing; sexual harassment casesmay hinge on determining the type of touching that occurred; and some airlines,broadcasters, and others have been involved in lawsuits charging discriminationon the basis of physical appearance. The San Francisco City Council was report-edly discussing a ban on certain nonverbal expressionssmirks, raised eyebrows,or loud guffawsin an effort to restore civility to council debates (Reuters, 2003).

In a remarkable study, the faces of chief executive officers (CEOs) of the25 highest and 25 lowest performing U.S. companies were rated on their leadershipability and their power-related traits of dominance, maturity, and competence.When any effects due to age, affect, or attractiveness were removed, the highest rat-ings on leadership and power-related traits were significantly related to their com-panys profits (Rule & Ambady, 2008).

While the consequences of the preceding studies are unquestionably important,they are not life-threatening. But in nursephysician interactions during a surgicalprocedure, effective nonverbal communication can literally make the difference be-tween life and death. One teenagers tragic death was also the result of misreadingnonverbal signals: The teen was practicing sign language with his cousin, and someof his gestures were believed by one gang to be signs of a rival gang, so they shotthe boy (Austin American Statesman, 2000). Other potentially harmful situationsinvolving assault and abuse have been the subject of nonverbal studies.

One study analyzed the appearance and movements of people who walkedthrough one of the highest assault areas in New York City (Grayson & Stein,1981). Then, prisoners who had knowledge of such matters were asked to viewthe films of the potential victims and indicate the likelihood of assault. In additionto finding that older people are a prime target, the researchers also found thatpotential victims tended to move differently. They tended to take long or short





23/31

strides, not strides of medium length, and their body parts did not seem to movsynchrony; that is, they seemed less graceful and fluid in their movement. A relstudy, using different methods, found similar results and concluded that any cluof nonverbal signals indicating a person has the energy to defend oneself and/orability to escape with ease reduces vulnerability to attack (Gunns, JohnstonHudson, 2002). Other studies have tried to identify nonverbal characteristics

rapists use to select their victims. Some rapists look for women who exhibit paity, a lack of confidence, and vulnerability; others prefer the exact opposite, wing to put an uppity woman in her place. The conclusion seems to recomma nonverbal demeanor that is confident yet not aggressive (Myers, TemplerBrown, 1984).

Another study that assessed potentially aggressive acts focused on mothers abused their children (Givens, 1978). It was noted that even while playing wtheir children, these mothers communicated their dislike with nonverbal behasuch as turning away, not smiling, and so on. Just as abusive and nonabumothers differ in their nonverbal behavior, the children of abusive parents nonabusive parents differ in theirs (Hecht et al., 1986). Facial expressions of dren in response to violence on television may also have some predictive valueidentifying aggressive behavior (Ekman et al., 1972). In short, scientists are exining nonverbal signals of both potential perpetrators of violence and the potenvictims of that violence (Givens, 2007).

Once a person has been charged with a crime and the trial process beginscan see several important and influential sources of nonverbal cues (Peskin, 19Pryor & Buchanan, 1984). One of this texts authors received a letter from antorney in Florida seeking information about nonverbal behavior in order to identhe possible effects of an appellate judge making a decision based on the wrirecord of the trial without any nonverbal signals. Because of the important imptions of decisions made in courtrooms and the desire to maintain impartial comnication, almost every facet of the courtroom process is being analyzed (SeaDuck, & Blanck, 2005). Judges are cautioned to minimize possible signs of parity in their voice and positioning. In one study, mock jurors were very much awof judges whose nonverbal behavior suggested a lack of involvement in the pceedings and perceived this behavior negatively (Burnett & Badzinski, 20Other studies confirm the belief that the attitudes and nonverbal cues enactejudges do in fact influence the outcome of a trial (Blanck & Rosenthal, 1992Chapter 6, several studies are reported concerning the effects of physically atttive witnesses and defendants. In some cases, attorneys and witnesses have bvideotaped in pretrial practice sessions to determine whether they are convenonverbally any messages they want to avoid. The study of nonverbal behavialso important to the process of jury selection. Although this attention to nonvesignals emanating from prospective jurors may indicate a degree of sensitivity did not previously exist, we need not worry that attorneys or social scientistsbecome so skilled that they can rig juries (Saks, 1976).

A list of all the situations in which nonverbal communication plays a sigcant role would be almost endless and would include such areas as dance, themusic, film, and photography. The nonverbal symbolism of various ceremonies





24/31

ritualsthe trappings of the marriage ceremony, Christmas decorations, religiousrituals, funerals, and so onprovide stimuli which guide the responses of those in-volved. From this broad array of situations in which nonverbal communicationplays a central role, we have selected some areas that we feel are particularly mean-ingful and have developed them. In Chapter 12 we examine nonverbal behaviorused in communicating intimacy, dominance or status, identity, deception, and

interaction management. Chapter 13 is devoted to an analysis of nonverbal signalsin advertising, politics, education, culture, health care, and technology.

SUMMARY

The termnonverbalis commonly used to describeall human communication events that transcendspoken or written words. At the same time, weshould realize that these nonverbal events andbehaviors can be interpreted through verbal sym-bols. We also found that any classification scheme

that separates things into two discrete categoriesverbal/nonverbal, left/right brain, vocal/nonvocal,and so onwill not be able to account for factorsthat do not seem to fit either category. We mightmore appropriately think of behaviors as existingon a continuum with some behaviors overlappingtwo continua.

We encode and decode nonverbal behaviorswith varying degrees of awareness and control.There are times when our responses are carefullyplanned, and we are very much aware of what we

are doing; there are other times when our responsesoccur more automatically, and little consciousplanning and awareness is associated with them.

The decoding of nonverbal signals is oftendone with the right hemisphere of the brain, buta considerable overlapping of functions betweenright and left hemispheres occursespecially ifone side has to compensate due to surgery or injuryon the other hemisphere. The theoretical writingsand research on nonverbal communication canbe broken down into the following three areas:

1. The communication environment (physicaland spatial)

2. The communicators physical characteristics3. Body movement and position (gestures,

posture, touching, facial expressions, eyebehavior, and vocal behavior)

Nonverbal communication should not be studiedas an isolated phenomenon but as an inseparablepart of the total communication process. Therelationship between verbal and nonverbal be-havior was illustrated in our discussion of hownonverbal behavior functions in repeating, con-flicting with, substituting for, complementing,accenting or moderating, and regulating verbalcommunication. Nonverbal communication isimportant because of its role in the total communi-cation system, the tremendous quantity of infor-

mational cues it gives in any particular situation,and its use in fundamental areas of our daily life.

This chapter also reviewed some of the his-torical highlights, noting the current influence ofthe works of Darwin, Efron, Birdwhistell, Hall,Ruesch and Kees, Mehrabian, Rosenthal, Ekmanand Friesen, and others. We reviewed the impor-tant roles and shortcomings of the popular litera-ture. The chapter concluded with an account of theprevalence and importance of nonverbal signals inselected areas of our daily life.

Questions for Discussion

1. Identify a situation in which you believeverbal behavior was clearly more importantto the outcome of an interaction than non-verbal behavior. Explain why.

2. Identify a situation in which you would givemore credibility to a persons verbal behav-ior when verbal and nonverbal behaviorconvey different messages.





25/31

3. Discuss the most unusual or subtle nonver-bal signal or signals you have observed inan interaction partner. What helped youassess their meaning?

4. If you could get an instant and true anto any question about nonverbal commcation, what would your question be?

Bibliography

Ambady, N., & Skowronski, J. J. (2008). First im-pressions. New York: Guilford.

Andersen, P. A. (2007). Nonverbal communication:Forms and functions (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL:Waveland Press.

Andersen, P. A., Garrison, J. P., & Andersen, J. F.(1979). Implications of a neurophysiological ap-proach for the study of nonverbal communication.Human Communication Research, 6,7489.

Archer, D., Akert, R., & Costanzo, M. (1993). Theaccurate perception of nonverbal behavior:Questions of theory and research design. In Blanck,P. D. (Ed.), Interpersonal expectations: Theory,research, and applications. Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press.

Argyle, M. (1975). Bodily communication. London:Methuen.

Argyle, M., & Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutualgaze. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Asendorpf, J., & Wallbott, H. G. (1982). Contributionsof the German Expression Psychologyto non-verbal communication research. Journal of

Nonverbal Behavior, 6,135147, 199219; and7,2032.

Austin American Statesman(June 11, 2003). NextArmy chief may be retired general.

Austin American Statesman(June 14, 2000). Teenshot while learning to sign.

Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullett, J.(1990). Equivocal communication. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Bavelas, J. B., & Chovil, N. (2006). Nonverbal andverbal communication: Hand gestures and facial

displays as part of language use in face-to-face di-alogue. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.),The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Beakel, N. G., & Mehrabian, A. (1969). Inconsistentcommunications and psychopathology. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 74, 126130.

Beattie, G. (2004). Visible thought: The new psycogy of body language. New York: Routledge.

Birdwhistell, R. L. (1952). Introduction to kinesiAn annotation system for analysis of body moand gesture. Washington, DC: Foreign ServiceInstitute, U.S. Department of State/Ann ArboMI: University Microfilms.

Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and context.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press

Blanck, P. D. (Ed.). (1993). Interpersonal expectations: Theory, research, and applications. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Blanck, P. D., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Nonverbabehavior in the courtroom. In R. S. Feldman (

Applications of nonverbal behavioral theoriesresearch. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Buck, R. (1984). The communication of emotionNew York: Guilford.

Buck, R., & VanLear, A. (2002). Verbal and nonverbal communication: Distinguishing symbolspontaneous, and pseudo-spontaneous nonverbehavior. Journal of Communication, 52,

522541.

Bugental, D. E. (1974). Interpretations of naturaoccurring discrepancies between words andintonation: Modes of inconsistency resolutionJournal of Personality and Social Psychology,125133.

Bugental, D. E., Kaswan, J. W., Love, L. R., & FM. N. (1970). Child versus adult perception oevaluative messages in verbal, vocal, and visuachannels. Developmental Psychology, 2, 367

Bugental, D. E., Love, L. R., & Gianetto, R. M.

(1971). Perfidious feminine faces.Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 17,314318.

Bugental, D. E., Love, L. R., Kaswan, J. W., & Apr(1971). Verbalnonverbal conflict in parentalmessages to normal and disturbed children.Jouof Abnormal Psychology, 77,610.





26/31

Bull, P. (1983). Body movement and interpersonalcommunication. New York: Wiley.

Burgoon, J. K. (1980). Nonverbal communicationresearch in the 1970s: An overview. In D. Nimmo(Ed.), Communication yearbook 4. NewBrunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Burgoon, J. K. (2002). Nonverbal signals. In M. L.Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of inter-personal communication(3rd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Woodall, W. G.(1996). Nonverbal communication: The unspokendialogue. New York: Harper & Row.

Burnett, A., & Badzinski, D. M. (2005). Judge non-verbal communication on trial: Do mock jurorsnotice? Journal of Communication, 55, 209224.

Cappella, J. N. (1981). Mutual influence in expressivebehavior: Adultadult and infantadult dyadic

interaction. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 101132.

Cappella, J. N., & Palmer, M. T. (Eds.). (1989).Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 8,34.

Choi, Y. S., Gray, H. M., & Ambady, N. (2005). Theglimpsed world: Unintended communication andunintended perception. In R. R. Hassin, J. S.Uleman, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The new uncon-scious. New York: Oxford University Press.

Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions inman and animals. London: John Murray.

Davis, F. (1971). Inside intuition. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Davis, M. (1979). The state of the art: Past andpresent trends in body movement research. InA. Wolfgang (Ed.), Nonverbal behavior: Applicat-ions and cultural implications. New York:Academic Press.

Davitz, J. R. (1964). The communication of emotionalmeaning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

DePaulo, P. J. (1992). Applications of nonverbalbehavior research in marketing and management.In R. S. Feldman (Ed.), Applications of nonverbal

behavioral theories and research. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

DePaulo, B. M., & Friedman, H. S. (1998). Nonverbalcommunication. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, &G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of socialpsychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed.). New York:McGraw-Hill.

DePaulo, B. M., Rosenthal, R., Eisenstat, R., Rogers,P. L., & Finkelstein, S. (1978). Decoding discrepantnonverbal cues. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 36, 313323.

Dittmann, A. T. (1977). The role of body movementin communication. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein(Eds.),Nonverbal behavior and communication.

Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.

Duncan, S., Jr., & Fiske, D. W. (1977). Face-to-faceinteraction: Research, methods, and theory.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Efron, D. (1941). Gesture and environment. NewYork: Kings Crown Press (Republished asGesture,race and culture in 1972). The Hague: Mouton.

Ekman, P. (1965). Communication through nonverbalbehavior: A source of information about an inter-personal relationship. In S. S. Tomkins & C. E.Izard (Eds.),Affect, cognition and personality. New

York: Springer.Ekman, P. (Ed.). (1973). Darwin and facial expres-

sion: A century of research in review. New York:Academic Press.

Ekman, P. (1977). Whats in a name? Journal ofCommunication, 27,237239.

Ekman, P. (1999). Emotional and conversationalnonverbal signals. In L. S. Messing & R. Campbell(Eds.),Gesture, speech, and sign(pp. 4555). NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of

nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, andcoding. Semiotica, 1, 4998.

Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Ellsworth, P. (1972).Emotion in the human face. Elmsford, NY:Pergamon Press.

Ekman, P., Liebert, R. M., Friesen, W. V., Harrison,R., Zlatchin, C., Malmstrom, E. J., & Baron,R. A. (Eds.). (1972). Facial expressions of emotionwhile watching televised violence as predictors ofsubsequent aggression. In G. A. Comstock, E. A.Rubinstein, & J. P. Murray (Eds.), Television andsocial behavior (Vol. 5). Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

Fast, J. (1970). Body language. New York:M. Evans.

Feldman, R. S. (Ed.). (1992). Applications of non-verbal behavioral theories and research. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.





27/31

Feldman, R. S., & Rim, B. (Eds.). (1991). Fundamentalsof nonverbal behavior. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Frank, L. K. (1957). Tactile communication. GeneticPsychology Monographs, 56, 209255.

Givens, D. B. (1978). Contrasting nonverbal styles inmotherchild interaction: Examples from a studyof child abuse. Semiotica, 24, 3347.

Givens, D. B. (2007). Crime signals: How to spot acriminal before you become a victim. New York:St. Martins Press.

Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York:Basic.

Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics:Experiments in spontaneous speech. New York:Academic Press.

Grayson, B., & Stein, M. I. (1981). Attracting assault:Victimsnonverbal cues.Journal of Communication,31,6875.

Gunns, R. E., Johnston, L., & Hudson, S. M. (2002).Victim selection and kinematics: A point-lightinvestigation of vulnerability to attack. Journalof Nonverbal Behavior, 26, 129158.

Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City,NY: Doubleday.

Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences:Communication accuracy and expressive style.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hall, J. A., & Andrzejewski, S. A. (2008). Who drawsaccurate first impressions? Personality correlates ofsensitivity to nonverbal cues. In N. Ambady & J. J.Skowronski (Eds.), First impressions. New York:Guilford.

Hall, J. A., Roter, D. L., & Rand, C. S. (1981).Communication of affect between patient andphysician. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,22,1830.

Harper, R. G., Wiens, A. N., & Matarazzo, J. D.(1978). Nonverbal communication: The state ofthe art. New York: Wiley.

Harrigan, J., Rosenthal, R., & Scherer, K. (Eds.).(2008). New handbook of methods in nonverbalbehavior research. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Harrison, R. P. (1973). Nonverbal communication.In I. deSola Pool, W. Schramm, F. W. Frey,

N. Maccoby, & E. B. Parker (Eds.), Handboocommunication. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Harrison, R. P., & Knapp, M. L. (1972). Towarunderstanding of nonverbal communicationsystems. Journal of Communication, 22,339

Hecht, M. A., & Ambady, N. (1999). Nonverbacommunication and psychology: Past and futuNew Jersey Journal of Communication, 7,1

Hecht, M., Foster, S. H., Dunn, D. J., Williams,J. K., Anderson, D. R., & Pulbratek, D. (1986)Nonverbal behavior of young abused and neglchildren.Communication Education, 35,134

Hecker, S., & Stewart, D. W. (Eds.). (1988).Nonvcommunication in advertising. Lexington, MALexington.

Hess, E. H. (1975). The tell-tale eye. New York:Nostrand Reinhold.

Hinde, R. A. (Ed.). (1972). Non-verbal communition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Iaccino, J. F. (1993).Left brainright brain differeHillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jones, S., & LeBaron, C. D. (Eds.). (2002). Speciissue: Research on the relationship between veand nonverbal communication.Journal ofCommunication, 52.

Kelly, S. D.

Knapp Chapter01

Documents

Transcript of Knapp Chapter01