Testul PONS Manual

Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity
(PONS Test): MANUAL
R. Rosenthal, J. A. Hall, M. R. DiMatteo,

P. L. Rogers, and D. Archer
Address all inquiries to:

Judith A. Hall, Ph.D.
University Distinguished Professor
Dept. of Psychology, 125 NI
Northeastern University
Boston, MA 02115
(617) 373 3790
j.hall@neu.edu
Revised October 2013
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Measuring Interpersonal Sensitivity 3
The PONS Test 4
PONS channels 5
Voice content-masking 6
Portrayal of the scenes in the construction of the PONS 6
Final selection of the scenes 7
Scoring 8
Limitations and Advantages of the Design 8
Channel isolation 9
Absence of verbal information 9
Absence of some nonverbal cues 9
Use of a posed criterion 9
Use of one encoder 10
Use of female encoder 11
Use of context-free scenes 11
Includes only a limited range of content 11
Summary of Main Findings from Rosenthal et al. (1979) 12
Normative data 12
Length of exposure to communication 13
Gender 13
Age 13
Cultural variation 13
Cognitive correlates 14
Psychosocial correlates 15
Mental and physical impairment 16
Roles and relationships: Occupational and personal 17
Practice and training 17
Construct Validity 17
Subsequent findings with the PONS 18
References 18
Appendix Materials
Answer sheets, scoring keys, Still PONS photos
Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity (PONS Test):

MANUAL
Introduction
This is the manual for the PONS test (full-length test and short forms). Included is an
overview based on the monograph Sensitivity to nonverbal communication: The PONS test
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979), by R. Rosenthal, J. A. Hall, M. R. DiMatteo,
P. L. Rogers, and D. Archer. Relevant information that has accumulated since the tests original
validation is summarized as well. A bibliography of relevant publications and sources is
included. This manual also contains blank answer sheets and a scoring key for the full and short
forms.
IMPORTANT: The PONS was developed and validated as a research instrument for
studies having multiple participants, not as a tool for individual assessment or diagnosis. You are
strongly urged NOT to use the test for this purpose because you cannot interpret an individual
persons scores with sufficient confidence.
Measuring Interpersonal Sensitivity
Interpersonal sensitivity (IS) is a broad construct that can include both perceiving others
accurately and engaging in interpersonally appropriate behavior (Bernieri, 2001). The PONS test
as well as comparable other instruments address only the perception side of this definition. It is
difficult to imagine social life without skill in processing the behavior and appearance of others.
In the course of a day, a person notices countless details about others speech, facial and bodily
movements, vocal tone, physiognomy, and dress, among other things, and then draws countless
inferences based on this information, even though such information is often fleeting and
incomplete. Psychologists have long believed that interpersonal sensitivity matters in daily life
(e.g., Kanner, 1931; Vernon, 1933), and it remains a timely topic of study (e.g., Ambady,
Bernieri, & Richeson, 2000; Ames & Kammrath, 2004; Elfenbein, Foo, White, Tan, & Aik,
2007; Nowicki & Duke, 1994; Hall & Bernieri, 2001; Hall, Bernieri, & Carney, 2005; Pickett,
Gardner, & Knowles, 2004).
Most often, interpersonal sensitivity tests measure accuracy in judging affective states or
personality traits, though many other areas of content can be, and/or have been, tested such as
truthfulness, intelligence, status, or the intimacy of the relationship between two people. Most of
the time, the stimuli are nonverbal cues conveyed by the face, body, and/or voice, but sometimes
linguistic cues are included as well. Occasionally, IS has been defined as accuracy in noticing
and recalling anothers nonverbal cues, speech content, or physical appearance. Accuracy that is
based on making interpretational judgments (in contrast to the more basic process of noticing
and/or recalling) has been called inferential and accuracy that is based on recall has been
called attentional (Hall, Carter, & Horgan, 2001; Hall, Murphy, & Schmid Mast, 2006),
corresponding to utilization and detection in Funders Realistic Accuracy Model of
personality expression and judgment (Funder, 1995). Whatever definition is used, IS is tested by
having perceivers make assessments based on the behavior of one or more expressors (targets)
and then scoring these assessments for accuracy based on independent scoring criteria.
Authors have generally considered IS to be a valuable skill. IS, in the form of judging
others emotions from nonverbal cues, has been included as one of the defining elements of the
emotional intelligence construct (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003). However, the IS
field is underdeveloped theoretically (Hall, Andrzejewski, & Yopchick, 2009; Zebrowitz, 2001),
one reason for which is the lack of a complete picture of the correlates of IS. According to the
Realistic Accuracy Model (Funder, 1995), individual differences in perceiver characteristics
contribute to interpersonal accuracy, along with various message and target characteristics, but
the model does not go deeply into the characteristics of the good judge.
Progress in understanding IS has taken two forms. One path is to develop new
instruments and paradigms to measure peoples accuracy in perceiving others. The PONS test is
only one of many instruments for accomplishing this. Other tests, as well as discussion of
methodological problems involved in measuring IS and their solutions, are described in Hall and
Bernieri (2001) and Hall et al. (2005). New tests continue to be made, examples being the
Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, Raste, & Plumb, I., 2001), the
Multimodal Emotion Recognition Test (Bnziger, Grandjean, & Scherer, 2009), and the Test of
Accurate Perception of Patients Affect (Hall et al., 2013a).
The second path to deeper understanding is to explore variables, both state and trait, that
are (or are not) associated with IS, as well as to study the process of judgment itself. The process
question is sometimes addressed using lens models aimed at identifying what cues are crucial to
accurate perception (e.g., Murphy, Hall, & Colvin, 2003) and sometimes by using experimental
manipulations such as cognitive load to shed light on the automaticity of nonverbal cue
judgments (e.g., Phillips, Tunstall, & Channon, 2007) or motivational manipulations to find out
if trying harder is an aid to accuracy (Hall, Blanch, Horgan, Murphy, Rosip, & Schmid Mast,
2009). There are now a substantial number of meta-analyses of IS in relation to a wide range of
psychological constructs, for example psychosocial/personality variables (Davis & Kraus, 1997;
Hall, Andrzejewski, & Yopchick, 2009), gender (Hall, 1978, 1984; McClure, 2000; Kirkland,
Peterson, Baker, Miller, & Pulos, 2013), age (Ruffman, Henry, Livingstone, & Phillips, 2008),
general cognitive ability (Murphy & Hall, 2011), psychopathology (Marsh & Blair, 2008), and
dominance/status (Hall, Halberstadt, & OBrien, 1997; Hall, Schmid Mast, & Latu, 2013).
The PONS Test
The PONS test, because it was created rather early in the history of IS test development,
has a very long track record. In our estimation, it is one of three instruments that have seen the
most use, the others being the DANVA tests developed by Nowicki and colleagues (e.g.,
Nowicki & Duke, 1994) and the Pictures of Facial Affect developed by Ekman and colleagues
(Ekman, 1976). The full-length PONS is a 47-minute black-and-white video (picture and sound)
composed of 220 numbered items. The 220 items are a randomized presentation of 20 short
scenes portrayed by a young woman, each scene represented in 11 different modes or channels of
nonverbal communication. The test-takers task is to view and/or listen to each item and then
circle the label that correctly describes the scene enacted in the item. The test-taker makes this
choice from two alternative labels printed on an answer sheet containing 220 such pairs of
descriptions. Each item is followed by a pause long enough for the decision to be made and
recorded.
Three short forms of the test have been developed which are often used, consisting of
selected items from the full-length test. One is called the Face and Body PONS, consisting of the
40 face only and body only items, without sound. The second is the Audio PONS, consisting of
the 40 voice-only items, with no picture. The third is the MiniPONS, consisting of a selection of
64 items from all of the cue channels (and combinations) (Bnziger, Scherer, Hall, & Rosenthal,
2011). Most of what is presented in this Manuals summary is based on the full-length test, which
has superior internal consistency reliability (see discussion in Rosenthal et al., 1979 and Hall,
2001). There is also a Brief Exposure PONS and a Still Photos PONS that are infrequently used.
This Manual includes only a small portion of the research findings that can be found in
Rosenthal et al. (1979).
PONS channels. The 11 channels in the PONS are made up of various kinds of auditory
and visual information sent by the portrayer. These channels can be thought of as falling into
two types. The first five channels are pure: face alone, body alone (neck to knees), face and
body together, electronically filtered voice (called content-filtered), and random-spliced speech.
Table 1 displays the 11 channels arranged in a two-way table: 4 kinds of video cues crossed by 3
kinds of audio cues.
Table 1. Design of the PONS

_____________________________________________________________________________
Audio
Video
__________________________________________________________________
No cues
Face cues
No cues
--a
20
20
20
Video 60
RS cuesb
20
20
20
20
RS 80
CF cuesc
20
20
20
20
CF 80
Figure 60
Total 220
Marginals
Tone 40
Body cues Figure (Face + body) cues
Face 60
Empty cell in design.
RS = random-spliced voice
CF = electronically content-filtered voice
Body 60
Marginals
_____________________________________________________________________________
Voice content-masking. In order to present a vocal stimulus that is truly nonverbal, it

is necessary to control or eliminate linguistic cues. Sometimes this is done by the standard
content method whereby expressors vary their intended meaning (e.g., angry vs. sad) while
saying the identical thing, which might be numbers, alphabet letters, or a neutral sentence (e.g.,
Baum & Nowicki, 1998). In the latter case, the listener can understand the words, but the words
do not help the listener to identify the expressors intended state.
Another approach involves physically changing the voice signal so that the words cannot
be understood. This approach, unlike the preceding, is suitable for voice samples gathered under
naturalistic circumstances and in any circumstances where it is not possible (or desirable) to
control the linguistic content. The PONS test uses two different content-masking techniques of
this sort. The random-splicing technique (Scherer, 1971) requires the audiotape or electronic
voice signal to be segmented into small pieces, reordered randomly, and reassembled. When the
reassembled voice is played back, the voice sounds natural in many ways, but of course the
words cannot be understood because they are chopped up and scrambled. Obviously, this method
sacrifices certain voice characteristics, particularly anything related to temporal ordering, such as
pitch contour.
The electronic filtering method, also used in the PONS, was modeled on the one reported
by Rogers, Scherer, and Rosenthal (1971). With this method, highest bands of frequencies are
removed with a band-pass filter so that the voice sounds muffled. By varying the controls on
whatever device is used, one can adjust the filtering to just that point at which the words cannot
be understood. Rhythm, tempo, and loudness are maintained.
The decision to use two kinds of content masking was based on the findings of Scherer,
Koivumaki, and Rosenthal (1972), who found that these two techniques systematically affect the
voice in different ways. The random splicing method makes the voice seem more pleasant, more
peaceful, and nicer than ordinary speech, as rated by listeners. The electronic filter makes the
voice sound more easy, calm, and steady than ordinary speech. The two methods involve
different kinds of information losstemporal sequence in random splicing, aspects of the signal
itself in electronic filtering.
Portrayal of the scenes in the construction of the PONS. The portrayals in the PONS
test were done by a 24-year-old Caucasian woman from the northeastern U.S. She was not a
professional actress, a decision deliberately made to reduce the likelihood of exaggerated or
stereotyped portrayals. The portrayer was not picked on the basis of any special skills or
knowledge about nonverbal communication.
Thirty-five scenes were videotaped, often several times (i.e., different takes for the
same scene). At no time was a script rigidly adhered to, but rather the exact wording often
changed with each repetition of the scene. This flexibility of wording was intended to enhance
the genuineness of the feelings and cues expressed; we hoped to reflect the natural style of the
portrayer and to avoid artificial, memorized, or self-conscious delivery. Naturalistic expression
was the focus, rather than any specific wording.
The 35 videotaped scenes were chosen on the basis of certain broad criteria. The first
interest was to represent a wide variety of situations and emotions, both strong and mild, positive
and negative. In addition, a special attempt was made to find interactive situations. Since the
6
purpose of the test was to measure ability to understand cues sent by another person, it made
sense to concentrate on cues sent in interaction.
Final selection of the scenes. Choosing the best scenes for inclusion in the final
version of the PONS was done by obtaining ratings from people who knew the portrayer and
who as a group viewed the Figure (Face plus Body) takes of all scenes, in their full length
(averaging 5.5 seconds), and without any kind of content masking of the voice.
For each scene each rater did the following: (1) ordered the several takes according to his
or her overall preference, (2) gave the take a score of 0 to 100 on the basis of how well the scene
conveyed the intended emotion or situation, (3) rated the senders behavior in the take on a scale
from 1 to 7 for each of 3 dimensions: positive/negative (happiness, friendliness versus anger,
sadness, called here positivity); dominance vis--vis an unseen interactant; and intensity of
feeling.
For the 35 first-choice takes, the correlation of the median positivity rating with the
median dominance rating was -.05. Intensity was correlated .35 with dominance (p< .05), and
-.50 with positivity (p < .005). Intensity ratings were subsequently ignored for being significantly
related to the other two rating dimensions.
The final best take for each scene was the one having the lowest sum of the ranks given
by the eight raters (a scene with more first choices would have a lower sum of ranks than a scene
with more second and third choices). The scenes were then categorized on the positivity and
dominance dimensions as high positive, low positive (i.e., negative), high dominant, and low
dominant (i.e., submissive). Finally, from each of the quadrants formed by the intersection of the
positivity and dominance dimensions, five scenes were selected; in general, these were the five
having the highest score on the 0-100 rating of success in conveying the intended emotion or
situation (some scenes were also excluded due to technical flaws).
Based on pretesting, the length of exposure was reduced from the original average of 5.5
seconds to a standard 2 seconds per item. This was done to keep the test from being too easy.
Table 2. Twenty Scenes Arranged by Affect in Four Quadrants

__________________________________________________________________________
Dominance
Positivity
Submissive
Dominant
__________________________________________________________________________
Positive
Helping a customer
Ordering food in a restaurant
Expressing gratitude
Expressing deep affection
Trying to seduce someone
Talking about ones wedding

Leaving on a trip
Expressing motherly love
Admiring nature
Talking to a lost child
7
Negative
Talking about the death of a friend

Criticizing someone for being late
Talking about ones divorce
Nagging a child
Returning faulty item to a store
Expressing strong dislike
Asking forgiveness
Threatening someone
Saying a prayer
Expressing jealous anger
____________________________________________________________________________
Table 2 shows the final selection of scenes and their positions in the four quadrants
formed by the positivity and dominance dimensions. For these 20 scenes, the correlation of
positivity ratings with dominance ratings was -.38 (p = .10), and, based on an analysis of
variance (ANOVA), the reliability [(MS scenes minus MS scenes X judges)/MS scenes] of
ratings of positivity and of dominance were .97 and .92, respectively.
Scoring. Each item is scored as correct or incorrect. Scoring of subscales is possible, by
summing correct answers according to cue channels or according to affective quadrant, for
example.
Limitations and Advantages of the Design
Although the PONS overcomes at least some problems in previous IS research, the test is
not without limitations. In making the PONS test, there were some trade-offs, perhaps inevitably,
between experimental control and ecological validity. While trying to make the PONS a reliable
measure of decoding nonverbal cues in separate channels, we also tried to make its content
representative of real-life behavior. It is probably impossible to achieve both fully. For example,
the price we would have paid for filming behavior occurring in natural settings would be
uncertainty over the proper label for the emotion and/or intentions of the expressor and perhaps
even for the psychological context; uneven control over technical quality; probably giving up the
idea of filming and audiotaping all the relevant behavior occurring in different channels
simultaneously; and so on.
Because of our choice of method, there are a number of ways in which the nonverbal
behavior in the PONS film differs from nonverbal behavior in everyday life, and also ways in
which the judging is quite different from the kind of judging that people do every day. These
differences are intentional design features of the PONS, not unwitting conceptual oversights.
Here we list and briefly describe some of these differences from everyday decoding of nonverbal
cues. The PONS:
Presents some channels in isolation
Presents no verbal information
Does not measure all possible nonverbal cues
Employs a posed criterion
Employs only a single encoder
Employs only a female encoder
Provides no context for the scenes employed

Includes only a limited range of content
Channel isolation. Everyday life generally presents multiple channels for interpretation
at the same time. In interacting with someone, we can try to decode all of their channels of
communication simultaneously. There are some circumstances, of course, under which the
channels available for interpretation are limited, such as talking on the telephone. In most faceto-face interaction, however, we have available to us all the nonverbal cues which the PONS film
isolates into separate channels. In everyday life, it may be the case that we each use a hierarchy
of channels, starting with the channel easiest to decode. In trying to judge someones emotions,
for example, it may be that we tend to prefer the face, and only use other channels when the face
is for some reason unavailable or not to be trusted. The PONS film, however, isolates nonverbal
behavior into different channels, and therefore restricts the nonverbal cues available to the
decoder in a manner unlike everyday life. Some of the PONS channels are closer to everyday life
than others (e.g., Face + Body + Voice).
Absence of verbal information. In everyday life, most nonverbal behavior occurs in
conjunction with verbal behavior. When we try to decode a persons emotion in a face-to-face
situation, we would typically be using both kinds of information in reaching our interpretation. It
could be that nonverbal cues acquire meaning principally in terms of the reinforcement (or
contradiction) of what the person is saying, rather than as a completely independent source of
information. The nonverbal behavior in the PONS occurs in pure formthat is, the encoders
verbal (linguistic) behavior has been entirely eliminated. This was of course intentional, since the
PONS was designed to be a measure of nonverbal sensitivity alone.
Absence of some nonverbal cues. The PONS presents 11 channels of nonverbal
behavior, made up of combinations of face, body, and voice. There are, however, other channels
of nonverbal information such as touch, interpersonal distance, and angle of orientation.
Furthermore, the PONS channels could easily be subdivided into smaller channels, such as
mouth alone or eyes alone. We focused on what we considered the major channels, with an aim
to maximize ecological validity (for example, mouth-only is not often seen in everyday life, but
the full face is).
Use of a posed criterion. The criterion of accuracy for each item in the PONS is in part
the situation or feeling that the encoder intended to portray. In everyday life, of course, we are
more likely to be decoding spontaneous or unposed emotions. The PONS encoders portrayals
were also rated and selected for authenticity, as described above. The PONS encoder, moreover,
felt that the portrayals were quite faithful to her own manner of expression. These procedures
were followed to ensure that her emotional expressions were not ineffectual, melodramatic, or
stereotyped.
The problem of a criterion in researching emotion, however, is complex. A number of
researchers have discussed the relative merits of different types of criteria in decoding research.
These can include intentionwhat the encoder intended to send; researcher opinionthe way
the researcher labels the emotion; ratings (i.e., consensus of observers)a panel of judges says
what they think is being conveyed; self-descriptionthe encoder reports his or her own feelings;
experimentally imposed eliciting conditionsfor example, the researcher shows the encoder
9
pictures of supposedly disgusting scenes and disgust becomes the criterion; and objective or
biographical dataan independent measure of what the encoders state or trait was, if one exists.
Examples of the latter would be a validated personality scale as the criterion in a task of judging
personality, or the fact of marital status in a task of judging whether two people are married or
not. None of these methods is perfect or always applicable in a particular research circumstance.
In selecting the portrayals for the PONS, we used a total of four of these methods:
portrayers intention (what she was trying to convey), researchers opinion, observers ratings,
and portrayers self-description (whether she thought the portrayal was authentic). These four
methods were the only appropriate procedures, given the design of the PONS film. We did not
want to use experimental manipulations to induce emotions, since only a very restricted range of
real emotions could have been ethically produced in this manner. As a result, the PONS encoder
was not spontaneously experiencing the affective states depicted in the film.
On a priori grounds one might prefer spontaneous over posed stimuli because it is
ultimately the decoding of everyday, spontaneous nonverbal cues about which we want to make
inferences. However, it would be an error of logic, though a common one, to assume that
because our ultimate concern is in more spontaneous nonverbal cues, a better index of accuracy
could be constructed from the use of such stimuli. Such an error confounds the question of
ecological validity with construct and predictive validity. It is true that the stimuli in the PONS
do not have perfect ecological validity (because they were posed), but this does not necessarily
have implications for the construct validity and predictive validity of the test. The latter kinds of
validity rest on the nature of the associations between the test and other variables of theoretical
and practical importance. Also relevant is the fact that ability to decode posed expressions is
strongly correlated with ability to decode spontaneous expressions (Zuckerman et al., 1976). In
fact, the PONS as well as other tests using posed expressions (e.g., the DANVA tests; Nowicki
& Duke, 1994, 2001) have produced a voluminous literature of associations with many other
variables of interest.
But before leaving the discussion of posed expressions, it is important to add an
important fact. Nonverbal behavior in everyday interpersonal interactions is typically not entirely
spontaneous. In such interactions, the behavior emitted is a mixture of spontaneous (i.e.,
authentic feelings expressed in an unpremeditated way) and deliberate enactments. People can
choose how to comport themselves through nonverbal cues to someprobably a greatextent.
Therefore, it is wrong to equate real life with spontaneous because nonverbal behavior in
real life is not entirely spontaneous.
Use of one encoder. The PONS film contains the nonverbal behavior and expressions of
only a single encoder. In everyday life, of course, we are surrounded by large numbers of
encoders who vary in many ways, including in how, and how well, they express themselves
nonverbally. However, the available literature on nonverbal communication suggests that good
decoders are likely to be more accurate than poor decoders not just with a single encoder but
with different encoders as well. In addition, as with the discussion of posed encoding above, the
test of whether validity was harmed by putting only one encoder into the PONS is whether the
test can predict a wide range of outcome variables and whether the test does so in a way that is
similar to other decoding tests that include different encoders. The answer to these questions is
yes (Hall, Andrzejewski, & Yopchick, 2009). Therefore, the accumulated research with the
10
PONS indicates that its results are not uniquely tied to whatever idiosyncrasies might have been
associated with its one encoder.
Use of female encoder. Using an encoder of one gender could produce certain kinds of
bias. This would be a possibility whether there was one encoder of one gender, or many encoders
of one gender. The problem would be in understanding gender-related results. For example, a
ubiquitous finding of the PONS is that females score higher on the test. The question justifiably
arises: Would this result occur if the encoder were male? Could it be that females are especially
accurate only with other females?
This question was laid to rest after meta-analyses of gender differences on other decoding
tests were performed (Hall, 1978, 1984). There was no evidence that the magnitude of the
female-decoder advantage varied with the gender of the encoders in the tests. This was true both
across studies in the meta-analyses, and within studies that reported their own analyses of this
question for their own tests. Thus, the PONS was not compromised by representing only one
gender in the expressions shown.
Use of context-free scenes. The scenes in the PONS are presented for only two seconds
against a blank wall and therefore, by definition, include no physical or interpersonal context. In
real life, of course, our interpretations of others states can draw on other behaviors of the
person, situational antecedents, the nature of the physical setting, knowledge of the persons
history, as well as other events and people in the environment. On the other hand, in real life one
often has to make quick judgments about others based on little information. This is the skill we
measured with the PONS test. It is then an empirical question whether this kind of skill predicts
to other skills and characteristics of a person.
Includes only a limited range of content. There are many states, traits, and
characteristics of persons that could be incorporated as the content of a nonverbal decoding task.
Many have been investigated, and many remain to be investigated. The list of possible content
includes emotions, attitudes, intentions, wishes/desires, cognitive state, personality, intelligence,
age, mental/physical health, sexual orientation, nationality/culture, ethnicity/race,
dominance/status, social class, kinship, relationship status, and deception, as well as many
others. To date, the most studied content areas for researchers interested in individual differences
in accuracy are emotions and personality (Hall, Andrzejewski, Murphy, Schmid Mast, &
Feinstein, 2008). Most researchers test only one kind of content area, a notable exception being
the IPT test (Costanzo & Archer, 1989), which includes items representing five content domains.
The PONS measures accuracy at decoding affective states as expressed in a variety of
different situations. Note, we do not call the PONS a test of judging emotions per se, because
although all of the scenes show affect, for many of the items the test-taker is asked to name the
situation the encoder is in, as in ordering food in a restaurant or talking about ones wedding.
Specific emotions are not typically named. The PONS includes 20 different scenes as explained
earlier. Though this certainly does not fully represent all of the affective situations a person
might be in, the scenes do vary both in positivity and in dominance. Considering our desire to
represent each scene in the 11 nonverbal channels, it was not possible to expand the content any
further.
11
Summary of Main Findings from Rosenthal et al. (1979)

Only a brief overview is possible. As of this writing (revision of Manual, 2009), the
PONS has been used in a large number of studies by a wide range of different investigators, in
addition to the already large number of studies reported in the original monograph on the test
(Rosenthal et al., 1979). We do not provide a bibliography of studies that have used the PONS,
but interested readers can likely locate the relevant literature by searching for the name of the test
on a standard electronic database such as PsycINFO.
Most of the results to be summarized below come from the PONS test monograph
(Rosenthal, 1979), where more details can be found. The studies reported in that monograph
were conducted by us or by many generous collaborators in many placesincluding 22 colleges
and universities in the U.S. and 18 abroad, and 14 primary and secondary schools in the U.S. and
abroad. Over 7,000 people were tested in samples that included university students, children and
teenagers, teachers and teachers in training, physicians and therapists (in practice and in
training), business people, mental patients, actors, and married couples.
Users of the PONS are urged to consult the monograph (Rosenthal et al., 1979). Of
special relevance to many researchers, that monograph contains normative data for many tested
groups. Sometimes in the summary that follows, we report effect sizes in standard deviation (SD)
units, called d (Cohen, 1969). This effect-size index shows the magnitude of effect for any
dichotomous independent variable and enables one to answer the question of how big the
difference is, as well as making it possible to compare various effects with each other (possible
because d is a standardized index). It is defined as the difference between the means of the
groups being compared divided by the shared (i.e., pooled) standard deviation of the two groups.
Also, we report effects in terms of r, the Pearson correlation.
Normative data. The basic reliability of the full PONS was quite adequate, reaching the
level obtained by standardized group-administered tests of intelligence. For our high-school
norm group (N = 492), the internal consistency reliability was .86 when computed using the KR20 method (analogous to Cronbachs alpha for dichotomously scored items). The same KR-20
value was obtained for a group of 200 fourth, fifth, and sixth graders. In six studies of retest
reliability, the median r was .69.
Note, these good levels of reliability were obtained with the full PONS. Shorter forms
have much lower reliability, as one would expect based on psychometric theory. In fact, weak
reliability in tests of interpersonal sensitivity, not just the PONS, has often been found (Hall,
2001).
We examined the effects on PONS accuracy of adding information from tone of voice,
body, and face channels and found that tone, body, and face cues contribute to accuracy in
judging the PONS scenes in the approximate ratios of 1:2:4, respectively. Table 3 presents the
results of a factor analysis of the 11 channels of the PONS. The four factors are defined by the
random-spliced channel alone, the content-filtered channel alone, the three channels showing
only the body (with or without voice), and the six channels showing the face (with or without the
body and/or voice).
12
Table 3. Factor Analysis of the 11 Channels

__________________________________________________________________
Factor
Median loading
No. of channels
No. of items
__________________________________________________________________
Face present
.68
6
120
Random-spliced
.95
1
20
Content-filtered
.96
1
20
Body without face
.59
3
60
__________________________________________________________________
Length of exposure to communication. A 40-item Brief Exposure form of the PONS
was developed to permit the examination of length of exposure on accuracy in decoding
nonverbal cues from the face and body. The 20 face-only and the 20 body-only scenes from the
full PONS were each subdivided into four groups of scenes varying in length of exposure.
Whereas in the full PONS each clip is 2 seconds long, corresponding to 48 frames of film (in
terms of the 16 mm sound film originally made), in this test the four lengths of clip are 1/24,
3/24, and 27/24 seconds long. Thus, even the longest clip on the Brief Exposure PONS is a bit
more than half the length of each item on the full PONS test.
The results of nine studies of high school and college students and U.S. adults (N = 506)
were quite consistent in showing accuracy very much greater than chance, and large in
magnitude, at even the shortest exposure. Accuracy increased dramatically at 3/24 second length,
but increased no further at the two longer exposures. The accuracy rates for the four lengths were
56%, 74%, 73%, and 74%. The very dramatic gain in accuracy between the shortest exposure
and the others may be due to the introduction of motion in the longer exposures.
Decreasing exposure to 9/24 of a second or shorter actually increased accuracy for body
cues but greatly decreased accuracy for face cues. Perhaps body cues are rapidly processed in
high-speed exposures in a global, nonanalytic manner whereas the face requires more analysis
and therefore more exposure, at least on this particular test. Accuracy on face cues can be
extremely high even at very short exposures if the stimuli are prototypical displays of basic
emotions (Matsumoto et al., 2000).
Gender. Effects of the test-takers gender were examined in 133 samples that took the
PONS (N = 2,615) at several age levels. Females were more accurate in 80% of the samples we
tested. Effect sizes (d) were .62 for grade-school, .49 for junior high, .57 for high school, and .44
for college. These effects are of moderate and fairly consistent magnitude across all four age
levels and for the entire pool of 133 samples (median d = .42). This effect corresponds to a
correlation of r = .21 between gender (male/female) and PONS score. Consistent with these
results, several analyses of variance revealed only small interactions of age and gender,
indicating that the gender effect is relatively stable cross-sectionally.
13
Subsequent meta-analyses that included many other tests and very few PONS samples
(Hall, 1978, 1984) also found superior performance by females, with the magnitude being nearly
identical to that found with the PONS.
Age. The full-length (i.e., 220 items) was administered to a grade-school norm group of
200 children in grades 3-6. The children used an answer sheet that had large type and simplified
vocabulary. Accuracy improved linearly with grade level in this sample. This kind of trend is
well documented with other nonverbal decoding tests as well (e.g., DANVA; Nowicki & Duke,
1994).
In an analysis of variance of the performance of four age levels (grade school, junior
high, high school, and adults), a large linear trend was found. The simple correlation between
PONS total score and mean age in 125 nonpsychiatric samples was .34.
Cultural variation. Extensive cross-cultural testing was undertaken with the PONS; over
2,000 participants, constituting nearly 60 samples from 20 nations other than the U.S., took the
PONS. Those cultures best able to decode the PONS were those cultures that were rated as most
similar to American culture (r for 30 samples = .70), although every tested culture performed
very substantially better than chance.
Those cultures best able to decode the PONS were also most similar linguistically to the
American language (r = .62), suggesting the possibility that linguistic similarity may be
paralleled by paralinguistic similarity.
Cultures that were more modernizedas defined by per capita steel consumption,
automobiles in use, and physician availabilityshowed greater accuracy on the PONS (median r
= .52) and cultures that were more developed in the communications area in particular (as
defined by per capita energy consumption, newsprint consumption, telephones in use, television
sets, and radios) were especially likely to be better decoders on the PONS (median r = .79).
Cultures more developed in the communications area may have greater experience with, and
practice in, decoding nonverbal cues in the variety of channels tested by the PONS and they may
have more exposure to nonverbal cues from U.S. culture. The latter interpretation is consistent
with the in-group advantage in decoding documented by Elfenbein and Ambady (2002).
Cognitive correlates. Two kinds of cognitive correlates were examined: performance
measures and cognitive style measures. Within the performance category, we can further
distinguish general intellectual abilities, for which we would predict a low relationship with the
PONS (because we theorized that ability to judge nonverbal cues is a distinct cognitive skill that
is not synonymous with general intellectual skill), and specific judging abilities in person
perception, for which we would predict more substantial correlations with the PONS.
In an analysis of 15 samples, the relationships between PONS and general intellectual
abilities (IQ, SAT, school achievement, and vocabulary) were small, on average, indicating the
PONS test does not measure merely general intellectual ability (median r = .14). This is
consistent with the findings of a meta-analysis based on many tests other than the PONS
(Murphy & Hall, 2009). Thus, though not synonymous, the skill tested with the PONS does have
some overlap with more general cognitive abilities.
14
The Group Embedded Figures Test, a test of perceptual disembedding (field

independence), was given to three samples. The median correlation with PONS total was .08 for
males and .28 for females, indicating that for females, at least, field independence (good
disembedding) was associated with higher PONS scores.
We also computed correlations between five measures of person perception skill and
PONS total. The Programmed Cases task, measuring ability to postdict personality from verbal
information, was correlated .26 with PONS total. We also employed four nonverbal decoding
tasks (involving judging emotions from visual or auditory cues, postdicting the pleasantness of
the senders mood, or postdicting personality or other personal factors from minimal verbal-plusnonverbal cues) and found that the median correlation with PONS total was .28. Subsequent
studies using the PONS and other conceptually similar tests of interpersonal sensitivity often find
that the correlations among different decoding tasks are small, perhaps due to reliability issues or
perhaps because there are distinct domains of decoding expertise (Hall, 2001).
In two studies, cognitive complexity also showed a positive relationship with the PONS
(median r = .28).
Psychosocial correlates. Many studies have been conducted in which PONS
performance was correlated with standard tests of personality, ratings by self, and ratings by
others. Table 4 summarizes the results of these studies (as reported in the PONS monograph;
Rosenthal et al., 1979; many other studies have been done since then, of course) and shows that
PONS performance is somewhat better predicted by standard tests of personality and by judges
ratings than by measures involving self-report.
Participants scoring higher on PONS Total scored as better adjusted, more interpersonally
democratic and encouraging, less dogmatic, more extraverted, more likely to volunteer for and
appear for behavioral research, more popular, and more interpersonally sensitive as judged by
acquaintances, clients, spouses, or supervisors. This last result, based on 24 studies of which 21
showed positive correlations, and yielding a median correlation of .22, provides especially
consistent evidence for the validity of the PONS as a measure of interpersonal sensitivity.
Table 4. Median Correlations of PONS Performance with Psychosocial Measures

________________________________________________________________________
Variable
Number of studies Median r
________________________________________________________________________
Interpersonal adequacy (median of 6 California
Psychological Inventory [CPI] scales)
Maturity (median of 6 CPI scales)
Achievement potential (median of 3 CPI scales)
Intellectual and interest modes (median of 3 CPI scales)
Task orientation (Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale)
Democratic orientation (Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory)
15
.25
5
5
5
1
2
.22
.31
.23
.21
.24
Encouragingness towards pupils (observation)

2
.76
Masculine therapeutic style (A-B scale)
3
.03
Nondogmatic (Dogmatism Scale)
2
.20
Low in need for approval (Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability
9
.07
Scale, CPI, Personality Research Form)
Low in Machiavellianism (Machiavelli Scale)
4
.08
Social-Religious Values (Allport-Vernon Study of Values)
1
.28
Extraversion (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, self-ratings)
3
.19
Low in self-monitoring (Self-Monitoring Scale)
6
.08
Self-reported interpersonal success
10
.06
Opposite-sex relationships and gains in PONS on retesting
2
.62
(self-ratings and others ratings)
Self-reported nonverbal sensitivity
28
.08
Spouses report of nonverbal sensitivity
2
.20
Others ratings of interpersonal sensitivity
22
.22
1
.15
Popularity (others ratings)
Volunteering and appearing for research (behavioral)
2
.40
Low in psychoticism (psychiatric patients) (2 scales)
1
.30
Median
.22
_____________________________________________________________________
Mental and physical impairment. Several samples of psychiatric patients and alcoholic
patients were tested with the PONS. These patients consistently scored below the level of the
norm group participants and by a substantial amounta full standard deviation. This result is
consistent with subsequent studies using both the PONS and other tests which show that
psychological dysfunction of many kinds is associated with lower ability to decode nonverbal
cues.
Nevertheless, the performance of the patient groups was very dramatically better than
chance, and patients were able to profit from the addition of audio cues, body cues, and face
cues. Just as for the typically functioning test-takers, face cues aided accuracy much more than
did body cues, and body cues aided accuracy much more than did audio cues. However, the
addition of audio, body, and face cues improved the accuracy of the patient groups less than it
improved the accuracy of the typical participants.
A group of blind students took the 40-item female sender audio test (i.e., voice-only
items from the full PONS), and there was no clear evidence of any overall difference in the
performance of the blind and sighted comparison groups. However, the blind students aged 17 or
younger performed better than the sighted students aged 17 or younger. Among students older
than 17, the performance of the sighted was better than that of the blind unless mental age was
partialed out.
A group of deaf students (age 10-15) took the video-only portion (60 face-only, bodyonly, and face+body only items) of the PONS. Among these students, those whose hearing was
more impaired performed substantially less well than did the students whose hearing was less
impaired. PONS performance was not related appreciably to skill at reading (r = -.13), skill at lip
16
reading (r = .02), or IQ (r = -.16). The performance of the deaf students as a group was
substantially lower than the performance of the comparison groups of students at all age levels.
A sample of deaf college students, however, showed no significant difference in PONS
performance from hearing comparison groups.
Roles and relationships: Occupational and personal. When various U.S. occupational
groups were ranked on PONS Total, the top three ranks were held by actors (2 samples), students
of nonverbal communication (3 samples), and students of visual arts (3 samples). These three
groups did not differ significantly among themselves, but together they scored significantly
higher (d = .45) than the fourth-ranking group, 8 samples of clinicians whose scores were
comparable to those of U.S. college students. The 8 groups of clinicians did not differ from each
other significantly, but together they scored better than the fifth-ranking and sixth-ranking
groups, teachers (10 samples) and business executives (3 samples) (d = .42). These two groups
scored similarly to U.S. high school students.
For teachers, and for clinicians, supervisors ratings of professional skill were obtained.
For teachers, the median correlation between PONS Total and rated teaching skill in 3 samples
was .38. For clinicians, the median correlation between PONS Total and rated clinical skill in 13
samples was .20. Hence, rated excellence in these two occupations requiring interpersonal skills
was related to PONS decoding accuracy, even though on the average these two groups did not
perform outstandingly on the PONS.
It was hypothesized that experience with preverbal children might enhance ones
sensitivity to nonverbal cues. When 2 samples of parents of toddlers were compared with 2
matched samples of nonparents, the parents were found to be more accurate on the PONS (d =
.50). This difference was due mainly to differences between the women who were mothers and
those who were not.
Practice and training. There is considerable evidence that prior experience in taking the
PONS serves to improve subsequent performance. For 8 samples who were tested twice, the
average increase in performance from first to second testing was very large (d = 1.79). The gains
in performance due to retesting were especially large in the 60 scenes in which only the body
was shown (with or without voice). An experiment in which participants were randomly assigned
to a pretest or a no-pretest condition yielded essentially the same result.
A training program was developed to see whether PONS performance could be improved
in a single training session lasting about 90 minutes. The program was administered to a group of
mental health professionals, half of whom were randomly assigned to receive the training; the
remaining professionals served as controls. Those receiving the training performed better on the
PONS than did the controls (d = .58).
Construct Validity
The defining feature of construct validation is that there is no single criterion that will
validate the instrument. This makes construct validation a long and difficult process. The general
problem of construct validation is especially acute when the construct has not been extensively
researched or measured in the past. That was the situation for the PONS test.
17
All of the relationships reported in this manual between PONS scores and other variables
help define the construct validity of the PONS. In evaluating these relationships, one should keep
in mind that the magnitudes to be expected are not very large, based on the size of validity
coefficients generally in the social-personality area. Furthermore it should be kept in mind that
the PONS, being a performance measure rather than a self-report measure, has little overlap
methodologically with many of the variables we tested. Therefore, there is little or no inflation of
the correlations due to shared method variance. The overall pattern of non-zero correlations we
obtained with variables that we would intuitively predict to be correlated with the PONS
supports convergent and predictive validity.
Subsequent findings with the PONS. Since the original monograph on the PONS was
published (Rosenthal et al., 1979), many other studies using the test have been published, which
further support construct validity of the test. We do not offer a comprehensive listing here, but
merely some illustrative findings: higher PONS scores predict lower non-clinical depression
(Ambady & Gray, 2002); more favorable ratings on numerous dimensions made by
acquaintances (Funder & Harris, 1986); among physicians, higher satisfaction in ones patients
(DiMatteo, Taranta, Friedman, & Prince, 1980); better learning in a dyadic teaching situation
(Bernieri, 1991); less severe symptomatology in schizophrenia (Toomey, Schuldberg, Corrigan,
& Green, 2002); better knowledge of the meanings of nonverbal cues as measured with a paperand-pencil test (Rosip & Hall, 2004); being a better music teacher (Kurkul, 2007); and, among
medical students interacting with several actor-patients in a simulated medical interview, higher
ratings of interpersonal skills as made by those actor-patients (Hall et al., 2013b).
Also relevant to construct validity of the test is a meta-analysis of psychosocial correlates
of interpersonal sensitivity which included many tests, not just the PONS (Hall, Andrzejewski, &
Yopchick, 2009). Those authors reported little difference in the average size of effects between
studies that used the PONS and studies that used other tests. Therefore, in a general sense the
PONS test is associated with other variables similarly to other interpersonal sensitivity tests.
References
Ambady, N., Bernieri, F. J., & Richeson, J. A. (2000). Toward a histology of social behavior: Judgmental
accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream. Advances in experimental social psychology,
32, 201-271.
Ambady, N., & Gray, H. M. (2002). On being sad and mistaken: Mood effects on the accuracy of thinslice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 947-961.
Ames, D. R., & Kammrath, L. K. (2004). Mind-reading and metacognition: Narcissism, not actual
competence, predicts self-estimated ability. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 187-209.
Bnziger, T., Grandjean, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2009). Emotion recognition from expressions in face,
voice, and body: The Multimodal Emotion Recognition Test (MERT). Emotion, 9, 691-704.
Bnziger, T., Scherer, K. R., Hall, J. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2011). Introducing the MiniPONS: A short
multichannel version of the Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity (PONS). Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 35,189-204.
18
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001). The Reading the Mind in the
Eyes Test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or
high-functioning autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 241-251.
Baum, K. M., & Nowicki, S. Jr. (1998). Perception of emotion: Measuring decoding accuracy of adult
prosodic cues varying in intensity. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22, 89-107.
Bernieri, F. J. (1991). Interpersonal sensitivity in teaching interactions. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 17, 98-103.
Bernieri, F. J. (2001). Toward a taxonomy of interpersonal sensitivity. In J. A. Hall & F. J. Bernieri
(Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 3-20). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
Costanzo, M., & Archer, D. (1989). Interpreting the expressive behavior of others: The
Interpersonal Perception Task. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 225-245.
Davis, M. H., & Kraus, L. A. (1997). Personality and empathic accuracy. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic
accuracy (pp. 144-168). New York: Guilford.
DiMatteo, M. R., Taranta, A., Friedman, H. S., & Prince, L. M. (1980). Predicting patient satisfaction
from physicians nonverbal communication skill. Medical Care, 18, 376-387.
Ekman, P. (1976). Pictures of Facial Affect. San Francisco: University of California Medical
Center.
Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2002). On the universality and cultural specificity of emotion
recognition: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 203-235.
Elfenbein, H. A., Foo, M. D., White, J., Tan, H. H., & Aik, V. C. (2007). Reading your counterpart: The
benefit of emotion recognition accuracy for effectiveness in negotiation. Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 31, 205-223.
Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological
Review, 102, 652-670.
Funder, D. C., & Harris, M. J. (1986). On the several facets of personality assessment: The case of social
acuity. Journal of Personality, 54, 528-549.
Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender differences in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 845-857.
Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore,
MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hall, J. A. (2001). The PONS test and the psychometric approach to measuring interpersonal sensitivity.
In J. A. Hall and F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp.
143-160). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hall, J. A., Andrzejewski, S. A., & Yopchick, J. E. (2009). Psychosocial correlates of interpersonal
sensitivity: A meta-analysis. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33, 149-180.
19
Hall, J. A., Andrzejewski, S. A., Murphy, N. A., Schmid Mast, M., & Feinstein, B. A. (2008). Accuracy
of judging others traits and states: Comparing mean levels across tests. Journal of Research in
Personality, 42, 1476-1489.
Hall, J. A., & Bernieri, F. J., Eds. (2001). Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Hall, J. A., Bernieri, F. J., & Carney, D. R. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and interpersonal sensitivity. In J.
A. Harrigan, R. Rosenthal, & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), The new handbook of methods in nonverbal
behavior research (pp. 237-281). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hall, J. A., Blanch, D. C., Horgan, T. G., Murphy, N. A., Rosip, J. C., & Schmid Mast, M. (2009).
Motivation and interpersonal sensitivity: Does it matter how hard you try? Motivation and
Emotion, 33, 291-302.
Hall, J. A., Carter, J. D., & Horgan, T. G. (2001). Status roles and recall of nonverbal cues. Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior, 25, 79-100.
Hall, J. A., Halberstadt, A. G., & OBrien, C. E. (1997). Subordination and nonverbal
sensitivity: A study and synthesis of findings based on trait measures. Sex Roles, 37, 295317.
Hall, J. A., Murphy, N. A., & Schmid Mast, M. (2006). Nonverbal self-accuracy in interpersonal
interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1675-1685.
Hall, J. A., Schmid Mast, M., & Latu, I. (2013). The vertical dimension of social relations and accurate
interpersonal perception: A meta-analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Hall, J. A., Ship, A. N., Ruben, M. A., Curtin, E. M., Roter, D. L., Clever, S. N., Smith, C. C., & Pounds,
K. (2013a). The Test of Accurate Perception of Patients Affect (TAPPA): An ecologically valid
tool for assessing interpersonal perception accuracy in clinicians. Patient Education and
Counseling.
Hall, J. A., Ship, A. N., Ruben, M. A., Curtin, E. M., Roter, D. L., Clever, S. N., Smith, C. C., & Pounds,
K. (2013b). Clinically relevant correlates of accurate perception of patients thoughts and feelings.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Kanner, L. (1931). Judging emotions from facial expression. Psychological Monographs, 3 (Whole No.
186).
Kirkland, R. A., Peterson, E., Baker, C. A., Miller, S., & Pulos, S. (2013). Meta-analysis reveals adult
female superiority in "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" Test. North American Journal of
Psychology, 15, 121-146.
Kurkul, W. W. (2007). Nonverbal communication in one-to-one music performance instruction.
Psychology of Music, 35, 327-362.
Marsh, A. A., & Blair, R. J. R. (2008). Deficits in facial affect recognition among antisocial populations:
A meta-analysis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 32, 454-465.
Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J., Wilson-Cohn, C., Raroque, J., Kooken, K., Ekman, P, Yrizarry, N.,
Loewinger, S., Uchida, H., Yee, A., Amo, L., & Goh, A. (2000) A new test to measure emotion
20
recognition ability: Matsumoto and Ekmans Japanese and Caucasian Brief Affect Recognition Test
(JACBART). Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 179-209.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with
the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97-105.
McClure, E. B. (2000). A meta-analytic review of sex differences in facial expression processing and
their development in infants, children, and adolescents. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 424-453.
Murphy, N. A., & Hall, J. A. (2011). Intelligence and interpersonal sensitivity: A meta-analysis.
Intelligence, 39, 54-63.
Murphy, N. A., Hall, J. A., & Colvin, C. R. (2003). Accurate intelligence assessments in social
interaction: Mediators and gender effects. Journal of Personality, 71, 465-493.
Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. (1994). Individual differences in the nonverbal communication of affect: The
Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy Scale. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 9-34.
Nowicki, S. Jr., & Duke, M. P. (2001). Nonverbal receptivity: The Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal
Accuracy (DANVA). In J. A. Hall & F. J. Bernieri(Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: theory and
measurement (pp. 183-198). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Phillips, L. H., Tunstall, M., & Channon, S. (2007). Exploring the role of working memory in dynamic
social cue decoding using dual task methodology. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31, 137-152.
Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. (2004). Getting a cue: The need to belong and enhanced
sensitivity to social cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1095-1107.
Rogers, P. L., Scherer, K. R., & Rosenthal, R. (1971). Content-filtering human speech. Behavioral
Research Methods and Instrumentation, 3, 16-18.
Rosenthal, R., Hall, J. A., DiMatteo, M. R., Rogers, P. L., & Archer, D. (1979). Sensitivity to nonverbal
communication: The PONS test. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Rosip, J. C., & Hall, J. A. (2004). Knowledge of nonverbal cues, gender, and nonverbal
decoding accuracy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 267-286.
Ruffman, T., Henry, J. D., Livingstone, V., & Phillips, L. H. (2008). A meta-analytic review of emotion
recognition and aging: Implications for neuropsychological models of aging. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews, 32, 863-881.
Scherer, K. R. (1971). Randomized-splicing: A note on a simple technique for masking speech content.
Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 5, 155-159.
Scherer, K. R., Koivumaki, J., & Rosenthal, R. (1972). Minimal cues in the vocal communication of
affect: Judging emotions from content-masked speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1,
269-285.
Toomey, R., Schuldberg, D., Corrigan, P., & Green, M. F. (2002). Nonverbal social perception and
symptomatology in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 53, 83-91.
21
Vernon, P. E. (1933). Some characteristics of the good judge of personality. Journal of Social
Psychology, 4, 42-58.
Zebrowitz, L. A. (2001). Groping for the elephant of interpersonal sensitivity. In J. A. Hall & F. J.
Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 333-350). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Zuckerman, M., Hall, J. A., DeFrank, R. S., & Rosenthal, R. (1976). Encoding and decoding of
spontaneous and posed facial expressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34,
966-977.
22
Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity

(PONS Test)
Scoring Information
The information on the following pages is reproduced from R. Rosenthal, J.
A. Hall, M. R. DiMatteo, P. L. Rogers, and D. Archer (1979). Sensitivity to
Nonverbal Communication: The PONS Test (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press).
Note that the scoring key on p. 149 of that book, for the 40-item Audio
PONS, contains a typographical error. This error and its correction are
shown on the attached scoring key for that test.
The PONS Test Manual contains sample scoring sheets for the full-length
test and for the short forms.
- .. - -
.. i .
I
I
"(
Sensitivity to
Nonverbal Communication
THE PONS TEST
~,
ROBERT ROSENTHAL
PETER
L. ROGERS
JUDITH A. HALL
tvl. ROBIN DIMAITEO
DANE ARCHER
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY PRESS

Baltimore and London
_...
- ._... .......1. : . .
1'777
....
--,
I
50
SENSITIVITY TO NONVERDAL COMMUNICATION

Table 2.6. Contln11etl.
was started. (This signal was not fed to the recording Ampex,
c was
monitored by the technician through earphones.) ImmediatelY. allowing
this signal, another control was operated, switching out the cond video
mpex directly
camera and connecting the video output from the playbac
to the recording Ampex. This latter control could
operated in two
differen~ modes, depending on the auditory info
arion required for a
given segment. In the first mode, the audio sig s from the master video
tape, after being fed through the electronic fi er and audio console, were
routed through an audio gate to the recordi , Ampex. ln the second mode,
the Sony audio tape deck was started
the same instant as the playback
Ampex, and the audio signals from
randomized spliced audio tape were
gated to the recording Ampex nf passing through the audio console.
d. The visual and/or auditory info ation was then recorded in full (about 5.5
seconds) and was faded ou uring a one-second interval.
e. All recorders were stoppc; and operational steps 1 lhrough 4 were repented
for the next segment.
For those segments represen g the "pure" channels, i.e., requiring audio only or
video only, selected playbac controls and other interconnections were changed prior
to step 4, above, to meet e necessary conditions.
The technically orie d reader might question the advisability of using the audio
track recorded on th master video tapes as source for electronically filtered audio,
because of the so what inferior quality of the signal when compared with that on the
original audio t
as recorded by the Sony audio tape deck. Although the randomized
spliced audi track could not, by its very nature, be synchronized with the video
informatio when combined in a given segment. the electronically filtered audio did
require nchronization with the video, particularly when it was pair~d with face. Due
to th extreme difficulty of synchronizing the video and audio tracks from two indi. ~ al machines when making a composite recording, the audio tracks from the origi~al master,video tape.c; had to be used whenever electronically filtered audio was called
for.
Test
Segment Channel
FA
RG
RS
A. criticizing someone for

being Jnte
NO
!L expres.'ling gratitude
PS
+ RS
BO
FA+ CF
10
II
BO + CP
CF
12
BO + CF
RG
.j
TABLE. 2.6. Scoring Key for Full PONS Test
CF
FA+ RS
A. expressing jealous
anger
NO
.f1 tnlking to a lost child
PO
A. talking to n Jost child
PD
fL. admiring nature PO
RS
CF
Alternative &. Quadrant

A. talking about the death
of a friend
NS
!!:. taking to a lost child
PD
A. leaving on a trip
B. saying a prayer
helping n customer
PS
B. expressing gratitude
PS

being hue
NO
!1 leaving on 11 trip
PD
8. Jenving on n trip
PO
A. expressing gratitude
PS
PO
!1 lcuving on n trip
20
FIG
21
FIG+ CF
FA + RS
23
RS
24
FA-t CF
2S
no+ cr
26
FIG
admiring nature
PO
B. expressing motherly
love
PO
27
DO+ cp
A. expressing deep affection

PS
!!..:. nagging a child
NO
28
no+
.d:
helping n customer
PS

of n friend
NS
1!: trying to seduce someone
PS
A. talking to a lost child
PO
!!, helping a customer
PO
NS
A. lenving on u trip
PO
returning faulty item to
u store
NS
A. returning fuuhy item to
11 store
NS
!!..:. tulldng ubour one's
divorce
NS
.1: expressing jealous
anger
NO
D. tnlking about one's
divorce
NS
A. tnlking nbout the c.Jcath
of n friend
NS
11- threutcning someone
NO
!1
22
A. tnlking Dbout one's

wedding
PD
11- expressing gratitude
PS
d. asking forgiveness
NS
CF
d.:
expn:s.'ling deep affcction

PS
D. saying a prayer
NS
A. expressing deep uffcc
tion
PS
fl..: lrying to seduce some
one
PS
d: nagging a child NO
D. expressing motherly
love
PO
d: leaving on a lrip PO
D. ordering food in a
rcscourant
PS
1L helping a customer
PS
D. CXJ>rcs.c;ing jealous
ungcr
NO
BO
A. expressing motherly
love
PO
11 asking forgiveness
NS
29
FIG
I.S
FA
.!L
30
DO
.d:
16
80
31
RS
d:
32
FA+ CF
admiring nature
PD
D. helping a customer
PS
A. admiring nature
snying o prayer
PD
NS
.d.,. nagging a child
NO
PO
f1
17
FIG+ RS
B. admiring nnture
18
. FA+ CF
Alternative & Quadrant
14
SCORING KEY FOR FULL PONS TEST
Alternutive & Quadrant
19
PS
Appendix 2E
Test
Segment Channel
Test
Segment Channel
4.
D. talking abour one's

divorce
NS
13
Test
Segment Chnnnel
Altemntive & Quadrant
FA
A. nagging a child
NO
criticizing someone for
being late
NO
!1

being lute
ND
B. e~~:pressing grariludc
PS
threatening someone
NO
D. tnlking about one's
wedding
PO
A. nc.lmiring nature
PO
expressing strong dislike
NO
!1
Table 2.6. Contlnuetl.

Test
Segment Channel
33
!L
RS
34

ordering food in a
restaurant
PS
B. criticizing someone for
NO
being late
FA+ CF
PO
talking about one's
wedding
PO
.d.. talking to a lost child
PO
B. expressing strong dislike
NO
Table 2.6. Continued.

Test
Segment Channel
46
FA
47
CF
A. asking forgiveness
NS
11. saying a prayer
NS
36
37
FIG+ CF
FIG+ RS
.d.:
trying to seduce
PS
someone
B. expressing jealous
NO
anger
:1.:
FA
B.
38
FA+ RS
A.
fL.
39
40
DO+ RS
BO
+ CF
A.
B.
A.
!!.
41
42
43
44
45
80
+ CF
BO
BO
FIG
FA

NO
expressing deep affec
tion
PS
leaving on a trip
PO
threatening someone
NO
expressing deep nffection
PS
talking about the deuth
nf a friend
NS
talking to a lo:o;t child
PO
being late
NO
d..
ordering food in a
restaurant
PS
B. expres..'ling gratitude
PS
.d.:
expressing motherly
PO
love
D. threatening someone
NO
FIG
48
49
so
51
+ CF
FA+ CF
BO
love
PO
fL leaving on a trip PO
RS
BO
61
CF
62
talking about one's

divorce
NS
B. ordering food in a
restaurant
PS
FA
A. admiring nature
FA + RS
A. saying a prayer
NS
in n
rcstnurnnt
PS
CF
A. admiring nature
-
FA
RS
store
NS
being late
NO
54
FA
55
RS
+ RS
d.:
talking about one's

wedding
PO
B. expressing deep affection
PS
~ expressing strong dis-
~ admiring nature
FIG
PO
CF
A. talking about one's

wedding
PD
ft. saying n prnyer
NS
65
FIG
CF
A. talking to n lose child

PO
f!..:. threatening someone
NO
PO
love
fL. nagging a child
NO
66
CF
67
FA
68
FIG
69
FIG
CF
CF
CF
8. ordering food in a
restaurant
57
d.:
58
FIG
PS
FA
returning faulty hem to

NS
a store
B. helping a customer
PS
RS

NO
PS
NS
BO
NO
like
restaurant
PS
56
FA+ CF
1.:
73
CF

PO
!!: criticizing s<>meonc for
NO
being late
74
FA

divorce
NS
1!:. trying to seduce
someone
PS
15
FIG+ RS
d:
d.:
talking to a lost child

PO
PS
70
+ RS
PS
76
BO + CF
d.:
77
FIG
1.:
talking about one's

divorce
NS
D. expressing deep affection
PS
expressing grutitude
PS
D. talking to a lost child

PD
79
BO
A. expressing gralitude
PS
!!: expressing strong disNO
like
80
FrG
.d.:
A. expressing slrong dislike

NO
!!.:. tnlking ubc.lut one's
wedding
PD
81
RS
A. tnlking about one's

wedding
PD
!1:. tnl~ing about one's
divorce
NS
82
FIG
A. trying to seduce
someone
PS
!L criticizing someone f01
being late
NO
83
FA
PO
love
!!: returning faulty item to
n store
NS
RS
d.:
threatening someone
NO
B. expressing motherly
love
PD

PS
J!: asking forgiveness
NS
d.
threatening someone
NO
B. nagging a child
ND
tulking about the death

of a friend
NS
B. trying to seduce
PS
someone
helping n customer
PS
FIG
expressing jealous
nngcr
NO
80 + RS
B. asking forgiveness
NS
1I
nagging a child
NO
B. talking to a lost child
PO
78
d:
BO
72
PO
64
expressing motherly
love
PO
!L returning faulty item to
expressing deep affcc

tion PS
D. expressing gratitude
PS
A. saying a prayer
NS
!!:. threatening someone
NO
Test
Segment Chnnnel
8. asking forgiveness
63
PO
d.:
fl.:. .ordering food
PO
love
f!.:. talking to a lost child
PO
expressing deep nffec
PS
tion
B. nagging n child
NO
60
+ eF
d.:
fL.
53
FA
,d.: asking forgiveness
FA
A.:
expressing strong disNO

like
restaurant
PS
expressing motherly
PO
love
PS
d: admiring nature
PO
B. expressing strong dis
like
NO
NS
8. nagging a child
NO
52
59
.d:
RS
fL.
35
Test
Segment Channel
+ RS
LL
helping a customer
PS
B. admiring nature
PI
Table 2.6. Cominued.

Test
Segment Channel
84
80
CF
Table 2.6. Continlled.
Allernative & Quadrant
4, returning faulty item to
a store
Test
Segment Channel
97
FIG+ CF
NS
B. nagging a child
NO
85
86
87
88
FlO+ CF
&
nagging a child
NO
B. leuving on a trip
98
FA
+ CF
PO
.d:
FJG
talking ubout one's

w~dding
PO
B. admiring nature
PO
FIG+ CF
RS
99
DO+ CF
d.

being lnte
NO
B. expressing deep affecPS
tion
A. admiring nature
PO
returning faulty item to
NS
a store
100
80
CF
JL
89
FIG+ RS
BO
+ CF
93
94
9S
FIG+ CF
103
RS
RS
CF
CF
PO

ND
being lute
!!.,;_ helping n customer
PS
+ RS
FA
104
105
talking about one's

wedding
PO
B. threatening someone
NO
PO
love
f1 nagging a child
ND
106
RS
divorce
NS
B. trying to seduce
someone
PS
+ RS
107
FA
108
FIG+ RS
109
PO
love
f1 criticizing someone for
NO
being late
I II
BO-t RS
DO+ CF
FIG+ RS
talking about one's

wedding
PD
B. talking about the death
of a f~iend
NS
A. saying a prayer
NS
!!.:. helping a customer
PS
113
FIG
!L
114
FIG
115
FIG+ RS
116
FA
PD
A. ordering food in a
PS
restaurant
!1 expressing jealous
anger
ND
A. talking nbout the death

of a friend
NS
f!: ordering food In a
rcstourant
PS
PO
fl.: nagging a child NO
.d.:
saying a prayer
NS
B. talking obour one's
divorce
NS
d:
expressing strong disNO

like
B. trying to seduce
someone
PS

wedding
PD
lL leaving on a trip
PO
PS
fL. admiring nuture
PD
d:
nagging a child
NO
B. leaving on a trip
restnumnt
PS
f!: asking forgiveness
NS
RS
.d:
exprel!sing strong dislike

NO
NS
Alternative & Quudmnr
112
.d:

being late
NO
B. talking about the deoth
of a friend
NS
d. expressing motherly
~ talking ubout one's
110
talking about one's

divorce
NS
NS
FA+ RS
80
anger
NO
fL asking forgiveness
NS
.d:
!!..:
PO
love
PS
96
BO
d. nsking forgiveness
NS
8. leaving on a trip
92
102
d. expressing motherly
love
PO
PS
91
DO+ RS
4, asking forgiveness
NS
B. expressing strong disND
like
90
101
Test
Segment Channel
117
FA+ CF
I 18
FA+ RS
119
PA
120
121
122
FIG+ RS
PIG+ CP
DO
expressing jealous
anger
ND
B. criticizing S<lmeone for
being late
NO

divorce
NS
fl.:. threatening someone
ND
A. expressing strong disNO
like
~ returning faulty irem 10
a store
NS
Test
Segment Chnnnel
123
FA
A. nagging a child
NO
PO
It
124
FA+ CF
A. admiring nature
!1.: nagging a child
J>()
ND
A. expressing strong dislike

NO
fl.:. helping a customer.
PS
d:
talking about one's

wedding
PO
B. ordering food in u
re."'lllurnnt
PS
.d.:
expressing gratitude
PS
D. expressing motherly
love
PD
Pb
expressing deep affecPS
tion
ft
a store
NS
expressing motherly
love
PD
.d:
125
FA+ CF
126
80
RS

PS
'fl.:. talking about the deuth
of a friend
NS
127
FIG+ RS

divorce
NS
!!..:. admiring nature
PO
128
FIG
129
no+ cr:
CF
ralking about one's

divorce
NS
B. admiring nature
PD
d:, expres.o;ing d,~ep affection

PS
D. admiring nature
PO
.4 tulking tn n lost child

J>O
B. admiring nature
130
131
PD
FA+ RS
A. rl!turning fnulty item to

a store
NS
fb lnlking nbout the death
of a friend
NS
FIG

wedding
PO
.!!..: returning faulty ilean
a store
NS
.1:
talking ro n lost child

PO
D. criticizing someone for
NO
being late
A. returning faulty item to
JL
d:
ordering food in a
restaurant
PS
NO
10
132
CF
133
FA+ RS
134
FA+ CF

NO
ll. ordering fond in a
restaurnnt
PS
135
FA
A. returning fnulty item to

a store
NS
!!..:. tnlking 11hout the death
or II friend
NS
136
FIG+ Cl;
A. expressing deep arrccPS

tion
!!..: saying n prayer
NS
!L
uthuiring nature
PD
D. leaving on atri11
PO
d: m;king forgiveness
NS
D. helping u customer
PS
Table 2.6. Cmrtlmted.
Table 2.6. Cmrlinul!cl.

Test
Segmenl Chnnnel
137
FIG+ RS
Test
Segment Channel

A. saying a prayer
NS
criticil.ing someone for
being lntc
ND
d: tnllcing about one's
PD
wedding
D. lulking nbnul one's
NS
divorce
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
FA
CF
FA
FIG+ CF
FA+ CF
BO + RS
CF
CF
DO
expressing gmtitude
PS
D. expres.'ling motherly
love
PD
~ expressing jealous
anger
ND
D. threatening someone
ND
A. asking fcugivencss
NS
!b expressing motherly
love
PO
d: admiring nature PD
restaurant
PS
.d: expressing motherly
Jove
PD
B. expressing jenlous
ongcr
NO
.d: expressing jcnlous
anger
NO
PS
restaurant
PS
!!:. returning faulty item lo
a store
NS
divorce
NS
fL leaving on a trip
PD
FA+ RS
I:'II
CF
152
RS
d:
153
CF
PS
!!..: threatening someone
ND
154
FIG+ CF
~ leaving on a trip
ISS
BO

of a friend
NS
fl.:. expressing jealous
anger
ND
l!i6
DO+ RS
A. helping a customer
PS
!l.:. expressing gra.titudc
PS
157
FIG
NS
NS
!L saying a prayer
158
RS
!!..: trying to seduce
d.:
147
CF
A. nagging a child
ND
!!..: saying a prayer
148
BO + RS
149
DO
!!..: trying to seduce

someone
PS
being late
ND
A. expressing deep affeclion
PS
PD
fL admiring nnture
~--__.._-----
NS

of a friend
NS
!!..:. expressing molhcrly
love
PD
A. expre!!ing gratitude
PS
It expressing strong dislike
ND
1:'10
fl.:
138
expressing deep nffection

PS
B. returning faulty hem to
a store
NS
Test
Segment Channel
162
FA+ CF
163
FA+ RS
164
FA + RS
165
166
FA+ RS
FIG+ CF
PD
D. talking to a lost child
PD
167
168
169
170
CF
FIG
BO + CF
DO+ CF
someone
PS
PS
159
160
161
FA+ CF
RS
FIG+ RS
expressing jealous
anger
ND
B. saying a prayer
NS
.d:
171

being late
NO
!1 helping a customer
PS
172

ND
fl.: expressing deep affeclion
PS
173
CF
BO
Alternative & Qundrunt

A. expressing deep nffection
PS
!!..: talking about the deolh
of a friend
NS
A. returning fnuhy item to
u store
NS
PD
~ leaving on ntrip
expressing
gratitude
d:
PS
B. expressing jealous
anger
ND
wedding
PD
11.: trying to seduce
someone
PS
A. Ullking to a lost child
PD
!1 expressing jenlous
anger
ND
PO
JL talking about the death
or a friend
NS
divorce
NS
!/.: asking forgiveness
NS
A. trying to seduce
someone
PS
!l:. threatening someone
ND
Test
Segment Channel
114
BO + RS
115
DO+ RS
176
DO
177
FIG+ RS
178
FIG
179
FIG+ RS
180
FIG+ CF
181
DO
182.
FA+ CF
1:
wedding
PO
B. criricizing someone for
being lore
ND
183
BO + RS
~ returning faulty item to
184
DO+ CF
d:
185
BO
d.:
PS
!l:. expressing jealous
anger
NO
&: talking about one's
a store
NS
D. expressing strong dislike
ND
FA+ CF
Allernative & Quadranl
d: expressing grutilude
B.
PS
PD
PS
11.: returning faully item lo
U SIOre
NS
Jove
PO
!L criticizing someone for
being late
ND
d: ordering food in a
restaurant
PS
D. expressing jealous
nnger
ND
d: expressing gratilude
PS
D. rclllrning faulty item to
u store
NS
1: expressing strong dislike
NO
D. tnllcing about one's
divorce
NS
d: talking about one's
divorce
NS
D. talking about the death
or a"friend
NS
.d: ordering food in a
restaurant
PS
B. returning faulty item In
a store
NS
love
PD
!L talking to a Jost,child
PO
trying to seduce
someone
PS
D. tulking about one's
wedding
PD
D.
PD
trying to seduce
someone
PS
talking about the death

of a friend
NS
D. asking forgiveness
NS
trying to seduce
someone
PS
8. talking to a losr child
PO
59
DBSION AND DEVBLOPMI!NT OF 1'HE PONS 1'EST
Tuble 2.6. Cmllinuetl.
Tuble 2.6. Comlnuetl.

Test
Segment Channel
186
FIG+ RS
187
BO
188
FIG+ CF
189
190
RS
FIG+ RS
Alternative & Qundnmt
d:, expressing motherly

love
PD
restaurant
PS
d: saying a prayer NS
8. expressing jealous
anger
ND
A. trying to seduce
someone
PS
!!:. tnlking about the denth
of a friend
NS
d:, ordering food in a
restaurant
PS
D. tnlking about the dealh
of a friend
NS
PS
someone
=:
192
193
194
195
196
FA+ RS
FA+ RS
200
no
201
202
FIG
203
FA
PS
d:.
AG
FA
CF
DO
BO
199
+ CF
FA+ RS
expressing motherly
love
PD
ND
being late
A.. saying a prayer NS
8. nagging a child
NO
PO
~ expressing deep affection
PS
Lt.: talking ubout one's
divorce
NS
n. returning faulty item 10
a slore
NS
A. threnlening someone
NO
JL helping a cuslomer
PS
.d.: crilicizing someone for
NO
being late
talking about one's
divorce
NS
204
BO
205
FIG
206
BO
207
FA+ RS
RS
DO
198
80 + RS
anger
ND
11.: nagging a child
NO
A. talking nbout one's
wedding
PO
!l:. expressing jealous
anger
ND
213
A. threotcning someone
NO
fL expressing strong dislike
ND
wedding
PD
fL talking about the death
of a friend
NS
A talldng about one's
divorce
NS
B. talking about one's
wedding
PO
Lt.: threatening Sllmeone
ND
NO
d.
admiring nature
PO
being late
NO
ordering food in a
restaurant
PS
B. nagging a child
NO
+ CF
expressing gratilude
PS
B. threutening someone
NO
A. talking ubout on.: 's
FIG+ RS
wedding
PO
saying a prayer
NS
A. admiring nature
of a friend
209
FlO+ CF
210
FIG+ CF
:1.:.
AG
PO
fL talking about the death
.d.:
2ll
212
.d:
n.
197
A. trying to seduce
PS
someone
!!.:. expressing deep affecPS
tion
208
Test
Segment Channel
Altemntive & Quadrant
A. helping a cus101ner
CF
fL trying to seduce
191
Test
Segment Channel
NS
trying to seduce
someone
PS
B. saying a prayer
NS
talking about one's
divorce
NS
ND
d:
expressing deep affec

tion
PS
B. trying to seduce
someone
PS
BO
FA
214
AG + RS
215
BO + RS
216
RS
Allemutive & Quadrant
A. saying a prayer
NS
talking about one's .
wedding
PO
:1: leaving on a trip PO
8. trying to seduce
someone
PS
A. saying a prnyer
NS
fl.: talking to a losl child
PD
A. udmiring nalure
PD
!!.: talking about one's
wedding
PO
anger
ND
!L criticizing someone for
being htle
NO
fL
Test
Segment Channel
217
FA+ RS
Ahernutive &. Quudrnnt
PO
ordering food in a
restaurant
PS
!1.
218
no+ Its

ND
fl.:. talking lu a lost child
PD
219
RS
A. expressing jenlous
ungcr
ND
fL. saying a prayer
NS
220
RS
NS
11 expressing gratitude
PS
NOTE: llalic type indicates correct answer. FA = face; DO= body; FIG a figure (face+ body); RS = randomized spliced speech; CF "" content-filtered speech; PS = positive-submissive; PO ""' positive-dominant;
NS = negative-submissive; ND "" ncgalive-dominnnl.
ITEMS IN FORTY-ITEM MALE, CHILD, AND ORIGINAL SENDER AUDIO

PONS
Table 6.16. Cmllinlll!d.

Irem Number
TABLE 6.18. Items in Pony-Item Male, Child, and Original Sender

Audio PONS
Item Number
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Item Number
in Full PONS
Item Number
Item Number
in Full PONS
160
105
62
66
33
139
21
94
22
190
II
3
I
81
27
J~"" t4f1
151
93
153
193
112
47
216
144
88
61
23
24
91
152
25
26
4
55
28
29
171
96
167
220
219
158
145
23
31
132
73
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
95
NOTI!: Using this table in conjunction with appendix 2E, an answer sheet and
scoring key can be constructed. Instructions read to test takers should be
appropriately modified from those in appendix 2F.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
74
103
107
119
122
123
135
138
140
146
149
Item Number
Item Number
in Full PONS
2
3
8
14
15
16
18
30
37
4
5
6
1
Hem Number
Item Number
in Full PONS
42
10
43
45
II
12
13
14
51
52
S7
15
60
16
70
lrem Number
in Full PONS
155
172
176
181
185
192
194
197
201
203
212
213
NOT: Using this table in conjunction with appendix 2E, an answer sheet and
scoring key can be constructed. Instructions read to test takers should be appropriately modified from those in appendix 2F.
ITEMS IN FORTY-ITEM FACE AND BODY PONS

TABLE 6. J7. Items in Fony-ltem Face and Body PONS
llem Number
I
Item Number
in Full PONS
16
15
122
3
4
5
138
119
185
10
18
60
116
213
II
155
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
57
197
135
8
9
TABLE 6.16. llems in Forty-Item Photo Booklet PONS
Item .Number
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
116
ITEMS IN FORTY -ITEM PHOTO BOOKLET PONS
Item Number
in Full PONS
103
181
14
43
52
8
Item Number
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Item Number
in f'UII PONS
107
30
212
51
149
70
140
146
74
194
37
176
33
34
172
35
36
37
38
39
40
201
123
42
45
192
203
N?TE: Using this table in conjunction with appendix 2E, an answer sheet and
sconng key can be constructed. Instructions read lo test takers should be appropriately modified from those in appendix 2F.
Personal identifier:
Sc_a R.t N ,__ ' ' E

(your name or a code provided for the study)
-=-----------------------------------------------------
MiniPONS Test
In the video you will see and/or hear 64 recordings of a woman's face, body and voice. Some recordings show only the
face, or the body, or the voice (without picture), other recordings show combinations of face and voice or body and
voice.
For each recording, you should circle the description on the answer sheet (A or B) that best describes the situation you
think she is in. Some of the clips are extremely short -less than 2 seconds- so it is essential that you look up promptly
after circling your answers.
1.
{!) admiring nature
15.
2.
rn.
Y.
talking about one's divorce

asking forgiveness
expressing jealous anger

16. A. admiring nature

@ asking forgiveness
@ ordering food in a restaurant
17. A. saying a prayer

@ talking about one's wedding
4.
A. expressing motherly love

@ nagging a child
18. A. saying a prayer

@ threatening someone
5.

helping a customer
19. A. nagging a child

@ talking to a lost child
3.
6.
expressing deep affection
B. nagging a child
7. A. expressing jealous anger
(9 nagging a child
8.
9.

admiring nature
@ talking about one's wedding

10.
criticizing someone for being late

B. talking about one's divorce
11. A. talking about the death of a friend

<!)
12.
13.

{A.)
Y.
returning faulty item to a store

14. A. expressing motherly love

<!:) nagging a child
20.
{!)
ordering food in a restaurant

21. A. threatening someone

@
22. @
leaving on a trip
B. trying to seduce someone
23. A. talking to a lost child

helping a customer
(!)
24. A. returning faulty item to a store

expressing motherly Jove
25.

B. expressing jealous anger

27. A. admiring nature

saying a prayer
28. A. criticizing someone for being late

talking about the death of a friend
JV\1 N I
Sc
Personal identifier: -- - - - - - - -
29.
{A)
expressing motherly love
47.
(ii:.. J
48.
t( threatening someone
30.
(A:) asking forgiveness

)(' nagging a child

ta lking to a lost chi ld
32.
B.
returning fau lty item to a store

helping a customer

@ expressing gratitude
SO.
33.@ leaving on a trip

B. saying a prayer
34.
Y.
B. expressing motherly love
@
B.
51.
talking about one's wedding

trying to seduce someone

B. talking to a lost chi ld
52. A. ta lking about one's wedding


53. A.
36. A. expressing strong dislike

@ ordering food in a restaurant
54. A. expressing deep affection

@ admiring nature
37.(!) ta lking about one's divorce
55.
56.
B. returning faulty item to a store

39.
(i::\ criticizing someone for being late
Y.
nagging a child
saying a prayer

naggi ng a child
B. talking to a lost ch ild
57. A. leaving on a trip

@)
40. A. trying to seduce someone



criticizing s~meone for being late


60. ({{)... threatening someone

43. A.


helping a customer
ta lking about one's wedding

62. A. leaving on a t rip

nagging a child
@)
@
@
44. A.
(!)
@
@.)
Y.
@)


saying a prayer

64. A.
C)
return i n~ fau lty item to a store

THE FULL PONS
Instructions to Test Takers

The film and sound track you are about to witness was designed so that
we may learn how well people can match facial expressions, body movements,
and tone of voice to the actual situation in which the expressions, movements,
and tones originally occurred.
You will see and hear a series of audio and video segments, and for
each one you are to judge which of two real-life situations is represented
_by the segment you have just seen or heard. After each segment you will
have a short period of time in which to record your judgment.
Some of the visual segments will have no sound track. Some of the
visual segments will have a sound track, but you will not be able to understand the words. Instead, you will hear speech that has been changed in
various ways, so that you will be able to judge only the tone of voice in
which something was said. Some of the segments will be made up of only
these speech-altered portions of the sound track, and for these there will
be no film to watch at all. In fact, the very first segment is like this.
Each segment you will see and/or hear has been numbered on the screen,
and this number corresponds to a number on your answer sheet. Your answer
sheet lists two brief descriptions of everyday life situations for each
segment. One of these descriptions correctly describes the actual situation
you will see and/or hear, while the other description does ~ describe the
situation accurately. For each numbered segment, please circle the letter
! or ~ next to the situation you believe to correspond to the segment you
have just seen and/or hea:rd.
When you see a ~umber appear on the screen, please find the corresponding number on your answer sheet and place your finger just in front of the
number, to keep your place. Watch and/or listen to the segment that follows
the number, and as soon as the segment ends, circle the letter ! or ~ corresponding to the situation you believe .the segment to have been based upon.
, _ . _ .... _
- ")1 .................
Then look to the screen again promptly to find the next number flashed on
the screen.
Many of the choices will be difficult, but you should choose one of
the descriptions even though you may feel quite uncertain about the correct
answer. Choose the more likely description for each segment even if you
feel you might be guessing.
you imagine.
Your guesses may be much more accurate than
In fact, we request that you do not change any answers once
you have made a choice. For every segment, then, do the best you can to
judge accurately the situation upon which each segment is based. Your
answer sheet contains a sample answer, which you should look at now.
All ready to start? Now we will begin.
39
NONVERBAL CQMMUNICATION
Name ------------------------------- Present address ----------------------Town and country of birth ------------------------ A g e - - - - S e x _
Primary language spoken --------------- Secondary language spoken --------Father's occupation ------------------Mother's occupation ---------------Field of study -------------- Average grade in last year of school ---------
INSTRUCTIONS:
Please circle the letter (A or B) next to the label which

best describes the scene you have just seen and/or beard.
SAMPLE ANSWER:
Scene 1.
~
~
admiring a baby
applying for a job
Scene 1.
A.
B.

Scene 18.
A.
B.
nagging a child
Scene 2.
A.
B.

admiring nature
Scene 19.
A.
B.
asking forgiveness
leaving on a trip
Scene 3.
A.
B.

Scene 20.
A.
B.
leaving on a trip
Scene 4.
A.
B.
leaving on a trip
saying a prayer
Scene 21.
A.
B.
leaving on a trip
Scene 5.
A.
B.

Scene 22.
A.
B.

Scene 6.
A.
B.
helping a customer
Scene 23.
A.
B.
expressing jealous anfer

talking about one's d vorce
Scene 7.
A.
B.

leaving on a trip
Scene 24.
A.
B.

threatening someone
a.
A.
B.

Scene 25.
A.
B.

saying a prayer
Scene 9.
A.
B.
helping a customer
Scene 26.
A.
B.

Scene 10.
A.
B.

Scene 27.
A.
B.
nagging a child
Scene 11.
A.
B.

helping a customer
Scene 28.
A.
B.
leaving on a trip
Scene 12.
A.
B.
admiring nature
Scene 29.
A.
B.
helping a customer
Scene 13.
A.
B.

nagging a child
Scene 30.
A.
B.

Scene 14.
A.
B.

asking forgiveness
Scene 31.
A.
B.
threatening someone
Scene 15.
A.
B.
admiring nature
helping a customer
Scene 32.
A.
B.
admiring nature
Scene 16.
A.
B.
admiring nature
saying a prayer
Scene 33.
A.
B.

Scene 17.
A.
B.
nagging a child
admiring nature
Scene 34.
A.
B.
leaving on a trip
Scene
2
Scene 35.
A.
B.

Scene 36.
A.
B.

Scene 37.
A.

I Scene 66.
A.
B.

nagging a child
Scene 67.
A.
B.

Scene 68.
A.
I
1
Scene 38.
A.
leaving on a trip
threatening someone
Scene 69.
A.
B.
e~pressing strong dislike
talk~g about one's wedding
Scene 39.
A.
Scene 70.
A.
B.
helping a customer
asking forgiveness
Scene 40.
A.

Scene 71.
A.
B.
threatening someone

Scene 72.
A.
B.
nagging a child

threatening someone
Scene i3.
A.
B.

B.
B.
B.
B.
Scene 41.
A.
B.
Scene 42.
A.
B.
B.
Scene 43.
A.
B.

Scene 74.
A.
B.

Scene 44.
A.
B.

Scene 75.
A.
B.

helping a customer
Scene 45.
A.
B.

nagging a child
Scene 76.
A.
B.

Scene 46.
A.
B.
asking forgiveness
saying a prayer
Scene 77.
A.
B.
Scene 47.
A.
B.

helping a customer
Scene 78.
A.
B.

asking forgiveness
Scene 48.
A.
admiring nature
Scene 79.
A.
B.
threatening someone
nagging a child

leaving on a trip
Scene 80.
A.
B.

B.
Scene 49.
A.
B.
Scene 50.
A.
B.

Scene 81.
A.
B.
talking about one 1 s wedding

Scene 51.
A.
B.
asking forgiveness
nagging a child
Scene 82.
A.
B.

Scene 52.
A.
B.
admiring nature
Scene 83.
A.
B.
helping a customer
admiring nature
Scene 53.
A.
B.

Scene 84.
A.
B.

nagging a child
Scene 54.
A.
B.

Scene 85.
A.
B.
nagging a child
leaving on a trip
Scene 55.
A.
B.

Scene 86.
Scene 56.
A.
admiring nature
Scene 87.
B.
A.
B.
A.
B.

admiring nature
Scene 57.
A.
B.

helping a customer
Scene 88.
A.
B.
admiring nature
Scene 58.
A.
B.

Scene 89.
A.
B.
asking forgiveness
Scene 59.
A.
B.

Scene 90.
A.
B.

helping a customer
Scene 60.
A.
B.
saying a prayer
threatening someone
Scene 91.
A.
B.
asking forgiveness
leaving on a trip
Scene 61.
A.
B.
saying a prayer
Scene 92.
A.
B.

helping a customer
Scene 62.
A.
B.
admiring nature
asking forgiveness
Scene 93.
A.
B.

threatening someone
Scene 63.
A.
B.

Scene 94.
A.
B.

nagging a child
Scene 64.
A.
B.

saying a prayer
Scene 95.
A.
B.

Scene 65.
A.
B.

threatening someone
Scene 96.
A.
B.

3
Scene 97.
A.
B.

asking forgiveness
Scene 128.
A.
B.

admiring nature
Scene 98.
A.
B.

scene 129.
A.
B.

admiring nature
Scene 99.
A.
B.

Scene 130.
A.
B.

Scene 100.
A.
B.

asking forgiveness
Scene 131.
A.
B.

Scene 101.
A.
B.
saying a prayer
helping a customer
scene 132.
A.
B.
admiring nature
leaving on a trip
Scene 102.
A.
B.
nagging a child
leaving on a trip
Scene 133.
A.
B.
asking forgiveness
helping a customer
Scene 103.
A.
B.

asking forgiveness
scene 134.
A.
B.

Scene 104.
A.
B.

Scene 135.
A.
B.

Scene 105.
A.
B.
criticizing someone for being late Scene 136.

A.
B.

saying a prayer
Scene 106.
A.
B.
talking about the death of a friend Scene 137.

A.
B.
saying a prayer
Scene 107.
A.
B.
leaving on a trip
nagging a child
Scene 138.
A.
B.

Scene 108.
A.
B.
saying a prayer
Scene 139.
A.
B.
Scene 109.
A.
B.

Scene 140.
A.
B.

threatening someone
Scene 110.
A.
B.

asking forgiveness
Scene 141.
A.
B.
asking forgiveness
Scene 111.
A.
B.

leaving on a trip
Scene 142.
A.
B.
admiring nature
Scene 112.
A.
B.

admiring nature
Scene 143.
A.
B.

Scene 113.
A.
B.

Scene 144.
A.
B.

helping a customer
Scene 114.
A.
B.

threatening someone
Scene 145.
A.
B.

Scene 115.
A.
B.

Scene 146.
A.
B.

leaving on a trip
Scene 116.
A.
B.

threatening someone
Scene 147.
A.
B.
nagging a child
saying a prayer
Scene 117.
A.
B.

Scene 148.
A.
B.

Scene 118.
A.
B.
admiring nature
nagging a child
Scene 149.
A.
B.

admiring nature
Scene 119.
A.
B.
expressing strong dislik~

helping a customer
Scene 150.
A.
B.

Scene 120.
A.
B.

Scene 151.
A.
B.
Scene 121.
A.
B.
Scene 152.
A.
B.

Scene 122.
A.
B.
leaving on a trip
Scene 153.
A.
B.
threatening someone
Scene 123.
A.
B.
nagging a child
Scene 154.
A.
B.
leaving on a trip
Scene 124.
A.
B.

Scene 155.
A.
B.

Scene 125.
A.
B.

admiring nature
Scene 156.
A.
B.
helping a customer
Scene 126.
A.
B.

Scene 157.
A.
B.
asking forgiveness
saying a prayer
Scene 127.
A.
B.

admiring nature
Scene 158.
A.
B.

4
Scene 159.
A.
B.

saying a prayer
Scene 190.
A.
B.
helping a customer
Scene 160.
A.
B.

helping a customer
Scene 191.
A.
B.

Scene 161.
A.
B.

Scene 192.
A.
B.
saying a prayer
nagging a child
Scene 162.
A.
B.

Scene 193.
A.
B.

Scene 163.
A.
B.

leaving on a trip
Scene 194.
A.
B.

Scene 164.
A.
B.
Scene 195.
A.
B.
threatening someone
helping a customer
Scene 165.
A.
B.

Scene 196.
A.
B.

Scene 166.
A.
B.

Scene 197.
A.
B.

nagging a child
Scene 167.
A.
B.
Scene 198.
A.
B.

Scene 168.
A.
B.

asking forgiveness
Scene 199.
A.
B.

Scene 169.
A.
B.

threatening someone
Scene 200.
A.
B.
threatening someone
Scene 170.
A.
B.
Scene 2.01.
A.
B.

Scene 171.
A.
B.

Scene 202.
A.
B.

Scene 172.
A.
B.
returning faulty item to store

Scene 203.
A.
B.
threatening someone
Scene 173.
A.
B.
Scene 204.
A.
B.
admiring nature
Scene 174.
A.
B.
returning faulty item to store
Scene 205.
A.
B.

nagging a child
Scene 175.
A.
B.

Scene 2.06.
A.
B.
threatening someone
Scene 176.
A.
B.

Scene 207.
A.
B.

saying a prayer
Scene 177.
A.
B.
Scene 208.
A.
B.
admiring nature
Scene 178.
A.
B.

Scene 209.
A.
B.

saying a prayer
Scene 179.
A.
B.

Scene 210.
A.
B.

threatening someone
Scene 180.
A.
B.

Scene 2.11.
A.
B.

Scene 181.
A.
B.

Scene 212..
A.
B.
saying a prayer
Scene 182.
A.
B.

Scene 2.13.
A.
B.
leaving on a trip
Scene 183.
A.
B.
leaving on a trip
Scene 214.
A.
B.
saying a prayer
Scene 184.
A.
B.
talking about the death of a friend Scene

asking forgiveness
215.
A.
B.
admiring nature
Scene 185.
A.
B.

Scene 216.
A.
B.

Scene 186.
A.
B.

Scene 217.
A.
B.
leaving on a trip
Scene 187.
A.
B.
saying a prayer
Scene 218.
A.
B.

Scene 188.
A.
B.
Scene 189.
A.
B.

talking about the death of a friend Scene 219 A.
B.
talking about the death of a friend Scene 220 A.
B.

saying a prayer
asking forgiveness
PONS VIDEO 40 lEST
Name: ~----~-----------------
Instructions: Please circle the letter (A or B) next to the label which best describes the
scene you have.just seen.
Scene 1. A.
B.
Scene 2. A.
B.
admiring nature
saying a prayer
admiring nature
helping a customer
Scene 21. A. leaving on a trip

B. nagging a child
Scene 22. A. criticizing someone for being late
Scene 3. A. leaving on a trip

Scene 23. A. saying a prayer

B. talking about one's wedding
Scene 4. A. trying to seduce someone

Scene 24. A. asking forgiveness
B. nagging a child
Scene 5. A. talking about one's wedding

B. talking about one's divorce
Scene 25. A. expressing deep affection

B. admiring nature
Scene 6. .A.
B.
Scene 7. A.
B.
. Scene 8. A.
B.
Scene 9. A.
B.
Scene 10. A.
B.

helping a customer
nagging a child
saying a pr~yer
threatening someone
threatening someone
leaving on a trip
Scene 26. A. helping a customer

Scene 27. A. expressing jealous anger
Scene 28. A. talldng about one's divorce
B. leaving on a trip
Scene 29. A. talking about one's divorce
Scene 30. A. talking about one's divorce
B. returning a faulty item to the store
Scene 11. A talking about the death of a friend

Scene 31. A. expressing strong dislike
B. expressing deep affection .
Scene 12. A.
B.
Scene 13. A.
B.
Scene 32. A. ordering food in a restaurant

. Scene 14. A.
B.
Scene 15. A.
B.
returning a faulty item to a store

helping a customer
expressing jealo\15 anger
nagging a child
returning a faulty item to a store
tal~g about the death of a friend
asking forgiveness
Scene 33. A. returning a faulty item to the store

. B. expressuig s~ong dislike
Scene 34. A. nagging a child
B. talking to a lost child .
Scene 35. A. expressing motherly love

Scene 36. A. expressing deep affection

B. nagging a chil~

B. asking for forgiveness
Scene 37. A. talking about one's wedding

B. talking about the death of a friend
Scene 18. A.
B.
Scene 19. A.
B.
Scene 38. A. criticizing someone for being late


.admiring nature
Scene 20. A. talking about one's. wedding

Scene 39. A. saying a prayer

B. nagging a child
Scene 40. A. threatening someone
PONS AUDIO 40
INSriWCTIONS;
Please clrct.e the letter (A or_ B) next to the label whteh best
describes the.scene yo~ have just heard,
t. A. criticizing lomeon
a.
for beint l1to
hetplng a c~stomer
2. A. criticizing someone for belnt 1ate
a. talking bout the deeth of friend
J, A. admlrlftJ
nat~r
1. atklnt orglvenes
~.
5.
A.
~presslnt motherly love

I. naatlnt a child
A. orderlnt fOod In Q restaurnt
1. crltlclzlnt someone for being
. - A. expres~lng gratitude
1 .-pressing motherly love
7. A.
expressing Jealous anger

1 lost child
I. talking to
8. A.
t1lklng about one's wedding

1. t1klng about one's divorce
9. A. naggtng a child
I. saying a prayer
10. A.'expresslng grtltude .
8. exPressing strong dislike
11. A. talking about on wedding
27. A. leaving on a. trip

B. saying a prayer
28. A. expressing strorig dtsllke
e. ordering food In resteuront
29. A. talking about one' ~ddlng
a. erltielzfng someone for being late
30. A. talking about ones divorce
3J. A. talking to a lost child
I
B. telklng about the death of a frlen
. I. threttnlnt &emeone
1). A. t1lkfng to a lost ch1ld
33. A. expressfng Jealous enger
a.
. B. pressing deep affection

3~.
15.' A. expressing motherly love
)5. A,
1,, A. criticizing someone for being late

\ B. 1eavfng on trip .
17. A. expreslng Jealous anger'
. " I, c:rltlclztng someone for being late
14. A_,reis1ng jealous ~ngcr
I. helping I CUStO!r.er
~
19. A. admiring naturo
f
returnrnv faulty Item to a 1tOre
A. sy~ns prayer
' I. ordering food In a restaurant
36. A.
1. admiring nature
A.
a.
a.
8.
to.
::
22. A. he1p1ng a cus~emer .

B. trying to seduce &omeone
.
I. helping 1 eustom6r
frlen
2~. A. talking about the death ol 1
a. talking to a lost ch11d
25, A. asking forgiveness
B.- 1eav1ng on a trip
26. A. express1ni deep affe~tlcn
a. returning faulty Item to a store
32. A. asking forgiveness
I. helping customer
21. A. ~P ress. rng moth-' r 1y love

~ neg$1ng 1 child
1. threatening someone
12. A, o~~ressfng gratitude
I
37.
38.
/A
8,
B.
39. A.
a prayer
try1ng to seduce someone
. .
ordering food In a rest1urant
returning faulty Jtem to. store
express~ng jealous anger
threatening someone
a"mirln; nature
Jeavlng on ~ trip
criticizing ~omeone for befng tate
seyln~
8.
40. A. expressing nh>therly Jove
B. expressing grtltude
Personal identifier:---------
MiniPONS Test
In the video you will see and/or hear 64 recordings of a woman's face, body and voice. Some recordings show only the
face, or the body, or the voice (without picture}, other recordings show combinations of face and voice or body and
voice.
For each recording, you should circle the description on the answer sheet (A or B) that best describes the situation you
think she is in. Some of the clips are extremely short -less than 2 seconds- so it is essential that you look up promptly
after circling your answers.
1.
A.
B.
admiring nature
helping a customer
15.
A.
B.
talking about one's. divorce

asking forgiveness
2.
A.
B.

threatening someone
16.
A.
B.
admiring nature
asking forgiveness
3.
A.
B.
leaving on a trip
17.
A.
B.
saying a prayer
4.
A.
B.

nagging a child
18.
A.
B.
saying a prayer
threatening someone
5.
A.
B.

helping a customer
19.
A.
B.
nagging a child
6.
A.
B.

nagging a child
20.
A.
B.

threatening someone
7.
A.
B.

nagging a child
21.
A.
B.
threatening someone
8.
A.
B.

admiring nature
22.
A.
B.
leaving on a trip
9.
A.
B.

23.
A.
B.

helping a customer
10.
A.
B.

24.
A.
B.

11.
A.
B.

25.
A.
B.

12.
A.
B.

helping a customer
26.
A.
B.

13.
A.
B.

27.
A.
B.
admiring nature
saying a prayer
14.
A.
B.

nagging a child
28.
A.
B.

Personal identifier:
------------------------29. A. expressing motherly love
B.
threatening someone
30. A. asking forgiveness

31.
B.
nagging a child
A.

B.
32. A. expressing gratitude
B.
B.
saying a prayer
34. A. expressing gratitude
B.
B.
36. A. expressing strong dislike
B.
37. A. talking about one's divorce
B.
B.
B.
B.
B.
B.
B.
44. A. talking about one's wedding
B.
B.
B.
B.
helping a customer
48. A. ordering food in a restaurant
B.
B.
so. A.
B.
B.
52. A. talking about one's wedding
B.
B.
saying a prayer
B.
admiring nature
B.
B.
B.
B.
B.
60. A. threatening someone
B.
B.
helping a customer
B.
nagging a child
B.
saying a prayer
B.
PROFILE OF NONVERBAL SENSITIVITY
Still version: 40 items
Copyright 1974 by Robert Rosenthal, Dane Archer, M. Robin DiMatteo,

Judith H. I<oivumaki, and Peter L. Rogers .
10
11
12
13
15
14
16
17
19
18
20
21
23
22
24
25
27
26
28
29
31
30
32
33
35
34
36
37
39
38
40
CHAPrER IV
INTERPRETING PERFORMANCE
After any of the PONS measures has been scored it can be interpreted
in terms of relative performance by comparing the scores to those obtained
by a suitable norm group. In the case of the 220-item full PONS, the
appropriate norm group is comprised of several hundred high school students.
Their average performancewas the basis_for the development of the two
profile sheets that appear below. For each channel score, pooled channel
score, type of scene score, or total, the obtained score is circled on
the profile sheet in the appropriate column. For example, i f the obtained
score on the Face channel were 17, that number would be circled in the
first column. Then, reading to the left margin from the circled 17 would
indicate that a score of 17 exceeds 69% of the members of the norm group
on that channel. When the score earned in each column is circled and the
circles are connected 9Y a line, a profile is formed; it describes the performance of the person tested. Inspection of the high and low points of
the profile show that person's relative strengths and weaknesses in ability
to decode various channels of nonverbal cues.
An analogous profile sheet developedfor the Nonverbal Piscrepancy
Test also appears below.
Provisional Norms
The norm groups for the shorter forms of the PONS tend to be smaller
and so only provisional norms have been provided.
Female Sender Audio PONS
~
RS
CF
Total
Sample:
_!!__
13.0
1.9
1.).8
1.8
26.8
2.6
119 high school students
77
..
~.,
.. ;.:.
Male Sender Au:lio PONS
RS
CF
Total
Sample a
Mean
_!!_
12.6
12.2
24.8
119 high
1.8
2.o
27
school students
' Face and Body PONS

Face
Body
Total
Sample a
Mean
15.6
152
1.7
1.9
2.7
30.8
92 teachers in training
78
.........
. ..:.
:~:
..
. . : ... .. ..
~
....::. ..
PROFILE OF NONV ERBA L SENSITIVI T Y :
STA NDA RD SCO RING SHEET
0
-l
Channel Scores and Total
::D
Face
99.9-
Face
Body
&
Face
Face
Body
Body
( Fi~ ure )
&
&
&
RS
CF
Rs
18-
CF . .
Rs
Body
&
Figure
Figure
&
&
cF
RS
cF
17-
17-
20
16-
19-
19-
1915-
18-
15-
18-
17-
(.)
16-
a:
15-
16-
15-
14-
15.9-
9-
11 -
1210-
8-
7-
(1)
Body
(2)
Face
&
Body
(Figure)
(3)
RS
(4)
CF
(5)
-l
13912-
14012135-
10-
Face
Face
Body
Body
F1gure
F1gure
TOTAL
&
&
&
&
&
&
(12)
RS
(6)
CF
(7)
RS
(8)
CF
(9)
RS
(10)
CF
(11)
AS= Randomized Spliced Voice

CF=Eiectronically Content-Filtered Voice
COPVriQht 1972 bv Robert Rosentha l . Oano Archor . Judith Kn iv umnk l nnrl PA t Ar I
-l
(/)
11-
13-
11 -
CHANNELS: Face
-l
145
10-
13-
)>
13
8-
120.6-
150-
14-
149-
12-
11 -
-l
15514-
14-
132.3-
15-
(/)
)>
15-
1013-
0 .1-
12-
1513-
12-
13-
15-
14-
6.7 -
r
0
16160-
10-
13-
16514-
16-
C)
14-
16-
11-
151 1-
14-
15-
)>
zII
170
17
16-
17-
12-
30.8-
175-
1712-
w
Q,
=!:1::
::tt:
1815-
18-
1350.0-
1617-
-l
180-
18-
13-
..
16-
19-
::D
c-o
19-
- -19
18- f---17
1716-
190-
185-
14-
20 17-
20-
14-
17-
195
18-
18-
-I
s:
18-
16-
93.3-
69 .2-
::D
1919-
C)
c-o
20-
97.7-
C/)
200-
19-
20-
84.1-
s:
m
)>
2020-
)>
-l
0
99.420-
::D
'TI
TOTAL
20-
18-
C)
RnnAr~ r.:~~rnhrl rln~ MAuArhllcA tt c
PROFILE OF NONVERBAL SENSITIVITY: STANDARD SCORING SHEET
Pooled Channels and Type of Scene

_Tone
Only
RS
FA
CF
99.9
773399.432-
97.7-
31-
93.3-
84.1
75-
72-
69.2Cl)
....
ih
w
a:
w
25.
45--
---- ,___ -54
43
52-
~55- 1---
24
r0
!:;2-
45-
n
)>
::!
47
45
43
50-
22-
,.
54.
39
44
52
53-51-
50--
42--
--
(/)
37
38-
44
35.
35
33-
33-
33-
40-
31-
31--
31-
38--
29-
29-
29-
36-
35-
42-
17-
49-
16-
47-
36
42
38 ..
4840-
34-
4036-
46-
38-
32-
38-
44-
0.1-
POOLED
40
CHANNELS: Tone
44-
37
40
19-
0.6-
37-
f - - - - 1-----
20-
18-
46-
39
42
55
2.3
41
39
46
40
I
)>
44
4G
57-
1t-
48.
C)
48
216.7-
41.
42.
5956-
15.9
43
46
48-
23
41
-f
:ft.
44.
58
30.8-
C)
:0
50
50
Q.
c
z
c"0
48
61--
54-
47-
52
63-
50.0
)>
:5:::
52
50
60
c"0
)>
46
..J
:D
49-
50
)>
::!
51-
48
62
:0
C)
-f
3:
49--
54-
56-
65
26-
56
52
--- 54
G4
27-
49-
58
56
67
-f
J:
:D
58-
66-
,z
53.
47-
69.
&
Dom
51-
54-
71-
Sub
Neg
55-
50-
60-
60-
73-
28-
&
Dom
56-
6829-
51-
74-
Neg
&
Pos
Sub
60-
7030-
FIG
80
58-
Pos
&
Video
Only
80
Rs
80
CF ..
only
AS.. Randomized Spliced Voice
.. CFEiectronlcally Content Filtered Voice
3460
Face
60
Body
60
Figure
60
Video
Only
TYPE
OF
SCENE:
i~~~'I=
1;; E
'II .a
ta
IR
"a
Ill
"a
I !
:E e
l~
tR
Copyright 1972 by Robert Rosenthal, Dono Archer, Judith Kolvumakl, and Peter L. Rogers, CombrldQO, Mossochusetts.
cII liiJo
"a
II
Cl
.
c
.I.. :1E
.!:
I!
zci
ZQ
Cl
18
IR
!.a
i e
KEY (numbers refer to number of scenes included):

40 Tone only .. 20 RS only + 20 CF only
80 RS .. 20 RS only, 20 FA+ RS, 20 80 + RS,
and 20 FIG+ RS
80 CF .. 20 CF only, 20 FA+ CF, 20 80 + CF,
and 20 FIG + CF
60 FACE .. 20 FA only, 20 FA+ RS, and 20 FA+ CF
60 BODY a 20 80 only, 20 80 + RS, and 20 80 + CF
60 FIGURE a 20 FIG only, 20 FIG+ RS, and 20 FIG+ CF
60 Video only .. 20 FA only, 20 80 only, and 20 FIG only

Testul PONS Manual

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Testul PONS Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity

(PONS Test): MANUAL

R. Rosenthal, J. A. Hall, M. R. DiMatteo,

Address all inquiries to:

Revised October 2013

Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity (PONS Test):

Table 1. Design of the PONS

Body cues Figure (Face + body) cues

Empty cell in design.

CF = electronically content-filtered voice

Voice content-masking. In order to present a vocal stimulus that is truly nonverbal, it

Table 2. Twenty Scenes Arranged by Affect in Four Quadrants

Talking about ones wedding

Talking about the death of a friend

Provides no context for the scenes employed

Summary of Main Findings from Rosenthal et al. (1979)

Table 3. Factor Analysis of the 11 Channels

The Group Embedded Figures Test, a test of perceptual disembedding (field

Table 4. Median Correlations of PONS Performance with Psychosocial Measures

Number of studies Median r

Encouragingness towards pupils (observation)

Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity

tvl. ROBIN DIMAITEO

THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY PRESS

SENSITIVITY TO NONVERDAL COMMUNICATION

A. criticizing someone for

TABLE. 2.6. Scoring Key for Full PONS Test

Alternative &. Quadrant

A. criticizing someone for

A. expressing deep affection

A. talking about the death

A. tnlking Dbout one's

expn:s.'ling deep affcction

.d.,. nagging a child

Alternative & Quadrant

SCORING KEY FOR FULL PONS TEST

Alternutive & Quadrant

D. talking abour one's

Altemntive & Quadrant

criticizing someone for

Table 2.6. Contlnuetl.

Alternative & Quadrant

Table 2.6. Continued.

Alternative & Quadrant

expressing strong dislike

talking about one's

talking about one's

~ expressing strong dis-

A. talking about one's

A. talking to n lose child

returning faulty hem to

expressing strong dislike

A. talking to a lost child

A. talking about one's

talking to a lost child

talking about one's

D. talking to a lost child

A. expressing slrong dislike

A. tnlking about one's

A. expressing deep affection

tulking about the death

Alternative & Quadrant

!L returning faulty item to

expressing deep affcc