Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/255820564
Nonverbal signals
CITATIONS READS
32 6,679
1 author:
Judee K Burgoon
The University of Arizona
325 PUBLICATIONS 14,743 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Judee K Burgoon on 21 May 2016.
Judee K. Burgoon
Department of Communication
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Poets and pundits, sages and songwriters have all waxed lyrical about
Edward Sapir's (1949) now famous quote: "We respond to gestures with an
elaborate and secret code that is written nowhere, known to none, and
understood by all" (p. 556). That the code is understood by all may be
dress, and the like to send messages. But this notion of body language is
Nonverbal Signals
3
elements (such as use of the voice, touch, distancing, time, and physical
to Read a Person Like a Book and Your Every Move Talks promote
claim that has given rise to extended debate on what constitutes nonverbal
orientation places the locus for deciding what is communication with the
inaccessibility to others. The only requirements are that the action occur
interpretation of it.
Aside from the personal discomfort such a position may cause by putting
everyone on the alert fulltime to the potential messages they and others are
receiver, making the sender's role irrelevant. And it makes the term
therefore, dispensable.
determining just which nonverbal behaviors are intentional and which are
1990a, 1990b, 1991; Stamp & Knapp, 1990). On one side of the issue
are reminiscent of earlier claims by Ekman and Friesen (1969b) and Knapp
(intentional) behaviors.
On the other side of the issue are scholars like Motley (1990b) and
socially shared coding system; i.e., they are typically sent with intent,
This approach does not ignore intent entirely. On any given occasion,
both sender and receiver may recognize that a behavior was not deliberate
systems) and symbolic or socially shared signal systems (e.g., Buck, 1988;
Cronkhite, 1986; Ekman & Friesen, 1969b; Liska, 1986; Mahl, 1987), the
Nonverbal Signals
11
message orientation does not exclude the former from the domain of
others have no meaning for it. Rather, the focus on messages calls
attention to the fact that much cathartic and expressive behavior takes the
excludes behaviors that lack consistent meanings and behaviors that fail to
signals.
and the statement, "Where do you get these crazy ideas?," the latter
them), do not meet the criteria of a coding system because they are not
thinness or height might be seen as deliberate acts to modify the image one
is projecting.
and include some ignored by others. The seven are: (1) kinesics (visual
Nonverbal Signals
14
movements, posture, gaze, and the like); (2) vocalics or paralanguage (use of
vocal cues other than the words themselves, including such features as
lead time, and amount of time spent with someone); and (7) artifacts
patently obvious. After all, not only are nonverbal signals ubiquitous in
My first thought in revising this version was that surely matters had
enterprise, progress has been fairly slow. And so the case must still be
Some Illustrations
on several topics and examine whether the receiver responds with equally
Nonverbal Signals
17
studies is that the sender's verbal behavior is what influences the receiver's
nonverbal cues that intensify or deintensify the total intimacy level of the
disclosures difficult to make and may tone them down with a nonintimate
cues. In either case, the "real" level of intimacy is different than the
response rather than the sender's verbal disclosure alone. Likewise, looking
and Hale and Burgoon (1984). The end result may be the false conclusion
that reciprocity did not occur when in fact it did, or conversely, that it did
one. Despite these shortcomings, much research has continued to use this
nonverbal behaviors that serve the same one-up and one-down functions as
seen.
1981; Miller, 1989; Putnam & Wilson, 1982). The same problems apply
indirect body orientation, gaze aversion, and facial impassivity. The failure
strategies for gaining compliance (see the Seibold chapter, this volume).
behavior, they have typically been studied at the verbal level only. For
claim of such, not if nonverbal credibility cues are presented. "Threats" are
attention away from the significant interplay between verbal and nonverbal
Nonverbal Impact
The examples above indirectly imply that nonverbal signals are integral
Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1989; Hegstrom, 1979), but its widespread
studies by Argyle and associates (Argyle, Alkema, & Gilmour, 1971; Argyle,
friendly, neutral, and unfriendly verbal passages were paired with friendly,
Nonverbal Signals
24
behaviors. Even though the verbal and nonverbal presentations, when rated
nonverbal cues when both the verbal and nonverbal were presented
together.
nonverbal cues are especially likely to be believed when they conflict with
Nonverbal Signals
25
information (see Burgoon, 1985b; Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1989 for
summaries):
language, they become highly literal. For example, they do not interpret
nonverbal signals.
the messages become more congruent. Some research finds that under
Nonverbal Signals
26
makes the verbal and nonverbal coding systems more equal in their
contribution to meaning.
Verbal cues are more important for factual, abstract, and persuasive
interpersonal contexts.
Nonverbal Signals
27
other cues are consistent with each other. For example, forward lean
believe the most extreme or negative cue. But nonverbal cues still tend
extreme.
attend to most often, the prevailing pattern is still one of relying more
These include possible innate origins for nonverbal attention and expression,
A perusal of the extant nonverbal literature reveals that much of the work
nonverbal behavior and coincide with many that Knapp (1985; Knapp,
behavior by a confederate).
When people interact with one another, numerous factors come into
managing the conversation itself impinge upon the verbal and nonverbal
Nonverbal Signals
31
behaviors that are displayed. Too, people may feel they have more at
stake when they are confronted with a real person than when they
respond, say, to a videotape. They may even have the sense that a
for future interaction increase once people become acquainted. The sensory
may also significantly alter behavior. A touch that seemed innocuous when
personally.
Burgoon, Manusov, Mineo, and Hale (1985) similarly found that initial
the applicants were interviewed because their interview behavior made all
among these factors and the extent to which one person's wants or
behaviors. Often (but not always), this requires a shift from the individual
person's behaviors and the other's interpretations become the typical bill of
transacted. They are the concrete "goods" that are exchanged and form
Nonverbal Signals
34
the basis for intangible, symbolic outcomes (such as love, concern) that come
Rubin, 1983); others are noted later. Research has shown that nonverbal
features and how nonverbal and verbal behaviors change longitudinally over
discourse.
nonverbal research has been conducted among strangers. The result is that
interactions that make up the core of our everyday lives. In what follows, I
will make special mention of research conducted among people who know
one another.
has been sounded for more than two decades (see, e.g., Argyle, 1972;
Burgoon & Saine, 1978; Ekman & Friesen, 1969b; Patterson, 1983,
interpersonal objective.
then nonverbal cues are the arteries through which the linguistic lifeblood
short, nonverbal cues are an inherent and essential part of message creation
nonverbal acts can precede the words, substitute for them, or be unrelated
not only are essential to verbal message encoding and decoding but are also
"message bearers" in their own right. The ability to encode and decode
cues and encoding and decoding skill in message production and processing.
Message Production
empirical studies) are gaze (whether one makes or avoids gaze, the latency
watch. A person who stares straight ahead, focuses intently on her work,
she smiles and makes eye contact, she is willing to interact. Other
and body blocks such as shielding one's eyes that create a nonperson
Nonverbal Signals
41
indicative ones.
semantic, pragmatic, and syntactic functions (Ricci Bitti & Poggi, 1991;
Nonverbal Signals
42
verbal messages. In their semantic and pragmatic roles, they may take the
illustrators, gestures that accompany and clarify the verbal stream; affect
personal needs but may be used to show disrespect (such as filing finger
interpersonal relationship; and other rituals that have clear meaning within
a given culture and can stand alone (see Burgoon & Hale, 1984; Ekman &
segment and synchronize the flow of speech (Scherer, 1980). We have all
Nonverbal Signals
43
supposedly for the benefit of the unseeing listener. Although some of this
meaning model (Burgoon et al., 1985; Burgoon, Coker, & Coker, 1986;
Burgoon & Newton, 1991). Bavelas and Chovil have proposed the same
principle in their integrated message model (see Chovil, 1991). This view,
1992; Rimé & Schiaratura, 1991) have postulated that gestures and
inextricable parts of the total message, difficulties in finding the right word
may be facilitated by first using the gesture that belongs with it, i.e., they
may "prime the pump" (Cohen, 1977). This is why gestures may often
construction.
pointing, shrugging, and facial displays such as smiling and motor mimicry
Black, Chovil, Lemery, & Mullett, 1988; Bull & Connelly, 1985; Chovil,
Shenker, & Knauer, 1990; Mahl, 1987). The fact that the former class of
nonverbal cues often occurs in abbreviated fashion or not at all when other
Nonverbal Signals
46
communicative function.
adaptor use increases, and silent pauses become more numerous and
Mahl, 1987; Siegman, 1978). Thus, nonverbal cues may signal difficulty
in message production. Because these same cues may arise for other
cognitive load."
Message Processing
1974; Birdwhistell, 1970; Cohen & Harrison, 1973; Krauss et al., 1991;
Kendon, 1980; Riseborough, 1981) as well as depict and reflect the larger
linguistic content into phonemic clauses, which are probably the form in
provide vocalic and kinesic punctuation so that words and clauses can be
may likewise aid comprehension of the incoming verbal input (Woodall &
Burgoon, 1981).
even of language not recognized on its own (Woodall & Folger, 1981,
artifactual cues may also lend visual vividness to the stimulus cue complex,
from, rather than center attention on, the verbal content of a message
messages may also produce deeper cognitive processing (Folger & Woodall,
1982).
this respect, the role of nonverbal cues in social cognition processes becomes
observers of the human situation. McLuhan and Fiore (1967) wrote, "The
was the ear--‘hearing was believing.’ The phonetic alphabet forced the
magic world of the eye. Man was given an eye for an ear" (p. 44). The
Nonverbal Signals
51
mediated cultures (see also Forsdale, 1981; Postman, 1985), four possible
reasons related to interpersonal contexts are: (1) visual cues may be more
therefore able to transmit information more efficiently per unit of time; (2)
information to a viewer; (3) visual cues can be scanned for a longer time
than can more fleeting, sequentially presented vocal and verbal cues; and
(4) vocal cues, which are automatically alerting, may be reserved as threat
Woodall (1989), Noller (1985), and Rosenthal et al. (1979) propose several
especially by children.
Impression Formation.
receiving ability, they are discussed together here. Friedman (1979) offers
a justification for a shift in recent years away from traits as the basis for
measures include use of audio and video stimuli about which respondents
Perception Task (Archer & Costanzo, 1988; Costanzo & Archer, 1989).
senders; decoding accuracy scores are obtained for the judges. Finally,
abilities. One such measure, the Social Skills Inventory (Riggio, 1986),
decoding (see Riggio et al., 1985). Yet, both have been shown to predict
Rosenthal, 1985).
Buck, 1979; Burgoon, Buller, Guerrero, & Feldman, 1993; DePaulo &
al., 1991; Kirouac & Dore, 1985; Lieberman, Rigo, & Campain, 1988;
following conclusions:
1. Encoding and decoding ability are correlated. Those who are better
senders tend to be better receivers and vice versa, but the relationship is
a modest one.
Vocal encoding skill tends to correlate with visual encoding skill; the
same is often, though not always, true of decoding skills. Those who are
greater among those who are gregarious, sociable, nondogmatic, and low
(and can even eliminate the female advantage over several trials), up to
a point. But elderly people lose some of their ability to detect emotions
Nonverbal Signals
58
poorly than them, perhaps because they become overly suspicious. Here
and decoding skill, but occupation does. People with better nonverbal
women as the better senders. (The only qualification was that results
small.
Numerous conjectures have been offered for why women often exceed
men in encoding and decoding ability. Two that Hall (1979) ruled out
Women are more likely to externalize emotions, whereas men are more
readily understood, whereas men are more likely to experience high internal
that is, they are shaped and negotiated through interactions with others
project their own identification with various personal and social categories
means of classification. Thus, not only may individuals rely on their own
Swann, 1987), but others may also treat such information as outward
may depart from one's "inner self" (see Jones & Pittman, 1982). The
person's own sense of self. Because such presentations may emanate from
differences far exceeds the space that can be devoted to it here. What
Cultural Differences
Cultures differ radically in their use of space, touch, time, and artifacts;
in the symbolism of their attire; in their use of kinesic and vocalic cues; in
short, in all the nonverbal codes (see, e.g., Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey,
1988; Hall, 1969, 1973, 1977; Leach, 1972; Morris, 1977; Morris,
Collett, Marsh, & O'Shaughnessy, 1979; Ricci Bitti & Poggi, 1991). As
styles differ depending upon their cultural heritage. Even where cultures
have similar behavior patterns, cultural display rules (Ekman, Friesen, &
Ellsworth, 1972) may modify the exhibited pattern and the circumstances
of a behavior's performance.
whether that is the sender's intent or not) and externalizing one's "collective
message distancing oneself from that culture and repudiating that identity.
Bradac, & Johnson, 1987; Giles & Smith, 1979; Giles, Taylor, & Bourhis,
Nonverbal Signals
66
1973), which postulates that people converge their speech patterns toward
primary groups.
Gender Differences
differences and possible explanations for these differences (see, e.g., Eagly,
1987; Gallaher, 1992; Jones, 1986; Hall, 1984; Hall & Halberstadt,
1986; Mayo & Henley, 1981; Mulac et al., 1987; Stewart, Cooper, &
Friedley, 1986; Stier & Hall, 1984; Willis & Briggs, 1992). Some of these
female or male physical attributes, and vocal qualities that connote strength
sitting with crossed ankles or crossed legs may be due to socially prescribed
Nonverbal Signals
68
2. Women smile more and are more expressive facially and vocally than
appeasement.
3. Women are approached more closely, tolerate more spatial intrusion, give
way to others more frequently, and take up less physical space than men.
Men are more likely to dictate spacing and distancing patterns. These
4. Women talk less, listen more, and are interrupted more often than men.
5. Women display more "submissive" postures and gestures such as the head
tilt, open palm display, closed arm and leg positions, and moderate
postural tension.
hesitations.
dominance (see, e.g., Halberstadt & Saitta, 1987; Hall & Halberstadt,
1986; Marche & Peterson, 1993; Staley & Cohen, 1988; Stier & Hall,
are more affiliative and communal than men. Consistent with Bem's
(1981) gender schema theory and Eagly's (1987) gender role theory, which
assert that many gender differences are attributable to women and men
the following:
do not.
9. Women are more animated and expressive than men facially and
gesturally and are more inclined to express positive emotions; men are
10. Women give as well as receive more touch than men and appear to seek
that men initiate more touch during courtship.) Women who talk more
masculine-inappropriate.
1992), the two alternative interpretive frames are compatible rather than
the above interpretations, and there are numerous ways in which men and
women do not differ nonverbally (see, e.g., Staley & Cohen, 1988) either
Personality
and touch avoidance (regarding the latter, see, e.g., Andersen & Sull, 1985;
Ayres, 1989; Burgoon & Koper, 1984; Burgoon, Pfau, Birk, & Manusov,
DiMatteo, 1980; Gallaher, 1992; Gifford, 1991; Remland & Jones, 1989;
emotional characteristics.
1987).
Impression Formation
Nonverbal Signals
76
When people first meet or talk, they rapidly categorize one another on
even feeble indicators can reveal important information. Given that initial
1980; Harper, Wiens, & Matarazzo, 1978; Kleinke, 1975; Knapp & Hall,
1992; Kramer, 1963; Siegman, 1978). Five key issues underlie the
made from nonverbal cues or channels (Kenny, 1991)? (2) what causes
nonverbal-based impressions?
(i.e., observers share the same perceptions but those perceptions are often
and social status that are derivable from external and emblematic
(1991) found that enduring facial and vocal cues accurately predicted
Nonverbal Signals
79
self-ratings of warmth and power; Kenny, Horner, Kashy, and Chu (1992)
for the high degree of accuracy in some judgments: (1) direct links between
inaccuracies examined single cues or codes rather than the multiple ones
Nonverbal Signals
80
judgment are numerous and the topic of extensive social cognition research
(see Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Zebrowitz, 1990). Relevant here is the extent
Knapp, 1985).
influenced judgments in the auditory channel and vice versa, i.e., there was
1991, 1992; Zuckerman & Driver, 1989; Zuckerman, Hodgins, & Miyake,
familiar with one another or gain other relevant information (Berry, 1990;
Morrow & McElroy, 1984), bolstering Knapp's (1985) contention that the
to interact.
Brewer, 1978; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990). Other sources of bias that have
interactions are the relative importance of dynamic cues versus static ones
kinesic and vocalic demeanor, and proxemic patterns are the most
& Hale, 1988; DePaulo, 1992; Friedman, Riggio, & Vasella, 1988;
Gallaher, 1992; Kimble & Seidel, 1991; Manusov, 1991; Mueser, Grau,
Sussman, & Rosen, 1984; Raines, Hechtman, & Rosenthal, 1990; Remland
& Jones, 1989; Reis et al., 1990; Sabatelli & Rubin, 1986; Simpson,
Gangestad, & Biek, 1992). For other judgments, facial and vocal cues
tempo, delivery style, fluency, physical height and weight, gait, and
1992; Burgoon, Birk, & Pfau, 1990; Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1989;
Burgoon & Hale, 1988; Burgoon, Newton, Walther, & Baesler, 1989;
Harrigan, Kues, Steffen, & Rosenthal, 1987; Ray, 1986; Remland & Jones,
Nonverbal Signals
85
evidence tends to endorse the latter position. Kenny et al. (1992) found
while dynamic cues rise in prominence. Cues that are novel, unexpected,
(1990, 1991, 1992a, 1992b; Manusov & Rodriguez, 1991) found that
factors rather than target intent where such situational attributions could
message value.
Impression Management
expertise, attraction, status, prestige, and the like. At the research level,
enhance self-presentation.
Nonverbal Signals
88
Relevant theories in this area are Goffman's (1959, 1961, 1963, 1967,
violations theory. Because the latter two pertain most closely to empirical
others.
Strategic Self-Presentation
ritualized social exchanges, (3) when there is high task orientation, or (4)
McCroskey & McCain, 1974; McCroskey & Young, 1981). Much of the
Nonverbal Signals
90
strategies (see Burgoon et al., 1990; Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1989;
Harper, 1985; Henley, 1977; Kleinke, 1975; Knapp & Hall, 1992; and
target that the actor is dangerous, because the actor will either
embarrass the target, cost the target in some way, cause self pain or
Nonverbal Signals
91
backward lean; less frequent but more direct eye gaze and staring; less
lower and more varied pitch; vocal cues of anger; use of vocal
but not for females (Camden & Kennedy, 1986; Raines et al., 1990;
frequent eye gaze, direct eye contact), conversational delivery style, and
signalling political militancy (e.g., symbolic attire and gestures) fit here,
vocal and kinesic pleasantness and expressiveness are also relevant. Voices
varied.
1983, 1992; Burgoon & Jones, 1976; Burgoon & Hale, 1988).
model prevails such that interpretations and evaluations associated with the
attentional shift to the source of the violation and the behaviors themselves,
Walther, & Baesler, 1989; Burgoon, Stacks, & Burch, 1982; Burgoon,
Stacks, & Woodall, 1979; Burgoon & Walther, 1990; Burgoon, Walther, &
Baesler, 1992; see also Storrs & Kleinke, 1990) has produced the following
Baglan & Nelson, 1982; Burgoon & Walther, 1990; von Raffler-Engel,
1983; Street & Brady, 1982; and the popularized literature on successful
Relational Communication
Nonverbal signals may express how interactants feel about each other,
about the relationship itself, or about themselves within the context of the
exists. But,it can also be seen as the "content" of messages about the
exists between the verbal and nonverbal channels such that the nonverbal
may use the dyad as the unit of analysis. Finally, research on identity and
behavior.
major findings (for details, see Burgoon, 1982, 1991; Burgoon, Buller,
1989; Burgoon & Newton, 1991; Cappella, 1983; Coker & Burgoon,
1987; Exline & Fehr, 1978; Henley, 1977; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992;
Heslin & Alper, 1983; Jones & Yarbrough, 1985; Kramer, Alloway, &
Thayer, 1986).
(Register & Henley, 1992) revealed that for many, intimacy is defined
and touch that signal approach and inclusion), (2) expressiveness (facial,
nonawkward interaction), and (5) social composure (e.g., postural and vocal
clear.
conveyed by a host of vocalic, kinesic, and proxemic cues, some of which are
exploration.
expressed by the opposites of these, along with some specific gestures such
as the head tilt and open palms that convey vulnerability and some
involvement and affiliative cues. One useful way to better understand the
such principles:
space first, walking ahead of others, being given a first turn, and so on
violate nonverbal expectations and are more likely to do so. Far and
Dominant people are freer to "drop their guard," to deviate norms for
"proper" behavior.
Formality and task versus social orientation. These last dimensions are
interrelated in that part of being task oriented is being more formal, and
Nonverbal Signals
109
Relationship Management
recognized that nonverbal behaviors signify the state of the relationship and
can promote or obstruct the development of intimacy (see, e.g., Altman &
satisfaction.
research. Work on initial attraction has shown that kinesic and vocal
cues associated with each stage and differentiated courtship cues from
Simpson et al., 1992). Research on relationship stages and types has found
Burgoon, Parrott, Le Poire, Kelley, Walther, & Perry, 1989; Guerrero &
Andersen, 1991; Planalp & Benson, 1992; Wagner & Smith, 1991).
strategies and tactics relational partners employ (e.g., Cupach & Metts,
1986; Shea & Pearson, 1986; Tolhuizen, 1989) and estimated their
Nonverbal Signals
112
whether conflicts are resolved or not (e.g., Alberts, 1989; Alfred, Harper,
Harris, Gergen, & Lannamann, 1986; Huston & Vangelisti, 1991; Julien,
Notarius, Stephen, & Smith, 1981; Newton & Burgoon, 1990). Research
marital relationships (e.g., Burgoon, Pfau, Parrott, Birk, Coker, & Burgoon,
1987; Kelley & Burgoon, 1991; Rusbult, Verett, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus,
discrepancies (e.g., Burgoon & Newton, 1991; Floyd & Markman, 1983;
Rusbult et al., 1991; Street, Mulac, & Wiemann, 1988). Among the
nonverbal cues are important barometers of, and influences on, attraction
be more telling to a spouse about the intimacy of the marriage than any
Nonverbal Signals
114
duration of specific relational cues, their sequences and cycles over time, the
on single cue and static analyses will doubtless give way to analyzing the
Deception
the ways in which people send messages designed to foster beliefs contrary
Nonverbal Signals
115
to what the actor believes is the true state of affairs. Deception may take
contexts. What follows is a brief overview of the primary theories and lines
Perhaps the most pervasive "theory" guiding previous deception work has
been Ekman and Friesen's (1969a) leakage hypothesis, which states that
deceivers attempt to censor and control facial expressions more than body
and limb movements because they expect others to watch their face.
the best indicators of deceit. This general premise has been extended to
whether the body and limbs or voice are leakiest (DePaulo, Stone, &
Leathers, 1980), the face has generally been considered the least likely to
leak information (with some exceptions) and the verbal channel to be the
to the deception literature and prompted much research, they overlook the
in deception that are likely to occur when people are allowed to interact
and both deceiver and receiver bring their own strategic agendas to the
individuals.
Ebesu, & Rockwell, 1993) have proposed and begun testing interpersonal
Nonverbal Signals
118
deception theory (IDT). IDT begins with the premise that deception is a
their image and self-identity while also successfully influencing the other.
while sending positive relational messages that promote trust. They also
behaviors that might leak true intent), and (3) defensive maneuvers
feelings possibly associated with guilt and embarrassment or flat affect that
performances).
alter the ways in which people act, process information, and interpret
another's behavior.
truthful, and receivers are attentive to any clues that "the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth" is not being presented.
one's credibility.
with the premise that interactions are dynamic events entailing feedback
loops between the two participants and that deception evinces strategic
longitudinal changes.
than the quest for valid nonverbal indicators of deceit. Consistent with the
correlates of actual deception, but the validity of many of them has been
attempted to sort out this issue (e.g., DePaulo et al., 1985; deTurck &
1992; Knapp et al., 1987; Miller & Burgoon, 1982; Zuckerman, DePaulo,
Nonverbal Signals
125
& Rosenthal, 1981; Zuckerman & Driver, 1985; Zuckerman, Driver, &
Koestner, 1982), but whether the consistently emerging cues are present
On the perceptual side, research has consistently shown that the cues
receivers stereotypically associate with lying do not match closely the actual
channels that receivers use to make judgments and the ones they should use
partly accounts for the generally poor success rate in detecting deception.
associated with facial versus body versus audio channels (e.g., Bauchner,
Kaplan, & Miller, 1980; Miller, Bauchner, Hocking, Fontes, Kaminski, &
shown that receivers tend to focus on the face (typically the least leaky
Nonverbal Signals
126
(e.g., Cody & O'Hair, 1983; deTurck & Miller, 1990; Knapp & Comadena,
1979; O'Hair, Cody & McLaughlin, 1981; Riggio & Friedman, 1983).
Effects of Suspicion
both the suspecter's behavior and that of the target of suspicion (Buller,
1992; Toris & DePaulo, 1985). Fortunately for deceivers, most people
Nonverbal Signals
127
the suspecter's behavior, but these changes may depend upon the level of
nonimmediate, and aroused but fairly fluent, while those who are highly
suspicious may be highly immediate, assertive, and poised but not as fluent.
suspicions, in turn, alter the suspect's behavior. Some individuals may use
is growing evidence that too much experience with deception can lead to a
press). This may explain why law enforcement and military professionals
charged with detecting deceit often are no more accurate than lay people
Nonverbal Signals
129
in lie detection include number and choice of channels available for making
deception, and deceiver's and receiver's social skills and nonverbal sensitivity
nonverbal codes are primary vehicles for expressing emotions as well as for
handbook is devoted to this topic, my focus here will be on the twin issues
Nonverbal Signals
130
states and how nonverbal resources are marshalled to control or alter those
states.
states and people's abilities to detect and interpret them. Second, in the
nonverbal literature the terms emotion, affect, and arousal are often used
experiences that are hedonically toned). Thus, one may use the concept of
Nonverbal Signals
131
affect in the context of describing attitudes toward some object (i.e., having
positive or negative affect toward it) without implying any particular level
boredom that are not thought of as emotions. In what follows, I will treat
Singer (1962), and Tomkins (1962, 1984), among others, have addressed
such issues as the relationship between internal states and their external
the origins of emotional expressions: (1) they arise from inborn neurological
programs that are part of our evolutionary development; (2) they are
ward off dangers or to withdraw from pain); or (3) they are shaped strictly
produced and understood in the same way by all members of the species
superficial and that actual use and interpretation are strictly a function of
Nonverbal Signals
133
the same stages of emotional development and exhibit the same expressions
within this body of literature comes from studies of blind, deaf, and limbless
roundness), which have shown that the same configural properties convey
& Stevenson, 1988; Aronoff, Woike, & Hyman, 1992). This implies
subcultural groups (see Ekman, 1973a; Knapp & Hall, 1992, for excellent
1975; Ekman et al., 1972; Ekman et al., 1971), which holds that
not only filter what stimuli will elicit different emotions but also dictate
when, how, with what meaning, and with what consequences emotional
Nonverbal Signals
135
displays will occur. The earlier introduced concept of display rules applies
communication.
researchers have proposed various labels and estimates for the number of
distinctive affects that exist, the cross-cultural work of Ekman and his
associates offers definitive support for these six: happiness, sadness, fear,
blends of these basic ones. To the extent that these expressions are part
these displays across cultures and social groups. For example, Matsumoto
the body is responsible for signaling the intensity of affect, whereas the
face signals the specific evaluative state, with various regions of the face
& Ekman, 1975; Cuceloglu, 1972; Ekman & Friesen, 1975). Within
the other codes have been analyzed systematically for their contributions
this range are usually false or mock expressions. This is probably one
suspicious.
emotions are detectable by the muscle groups that are enlisted as well as
al., 1992). Although some theorizing proposes that social factors inhibit
might imply that emotions are easily recognized by all members of the
human species, such is not the case. This leads to a final principle not
articulated by Ekman.
have difficulty accurately decoding many primary facial affects and most
much more ambiguous and difficult to decode than the posed expressions
and the likelihood that people may attempt to manage many emotional
there is some evidence that people are more facially expressive with friends
than strangers, making their emotional states easier to identify (Wagner &
Smith, 1991).
and negative affect in marital interaction (e.g., Gottman, 1979; Huston &
(1965) over two decades ago, little investigation has addressed the
Nonverbal Signals
141
messages that have different functions, and how emotional expressions and
behavior.
Arousal Expression
Nonverbal Signals
142
entails strong physiological reactivity (Le Poire, 1991). Both may range
and cues associated with its valence. The key propositions of their theory
are:
increases.
Beutler, Bergan, & Engle, 1992) have generally supported the hypothesized
infer the arousal level of their partners. Such cues may serve as useful
Matsumoto, 1991).
Nonverbal Signals
144
Affect Management
label applied, the principle is an important one. People use their overt
closeness and comforting from others, thereby alleviating their fears and
anxieties. When elated, they may express happiness and seek greater
sympathy and lessen the aversive emotional state. Thus, basic needs such as
will only discuss it briefly here. A sizeable share of the nonverbal literature
has tackled the issue of how nonverbal behaviors influence the progression
and patterning of conversation. Five main interest areas are evident in the
literature.
encounter and the programs of behavior that are to be invoked in it, they
In the absence of the nonverbal framing cues, the physician's behaviors could
attractiveness increase the probability that contact will occur; small volumes
whom, how often, and how cooperatively (see Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall,
1989; Kendon, Harris, & Key, 1975; Knapp & Hall, 1992; Patterson,
Nonverbal Signals
148
rituals. The behaviors and sequences by which people initiate and end
Kendon, 1990; Knapp, Hart, Friedrich, & Schulman, 1973; Krivonos &
Knapp, 1975; Morris, 1976; O'Leary & Gallois, 1985; Pittinger, Hockett,
which they signal accessibility and reinforce the intimacy level of the
relationship.
episodes. Nonverbal cues are the lubricant that keeps the conversational
control speaker behavior, behaviors that mark changes in the tone and topic
floor-holding and the flow of conversation, the role of distance and silence
themselves, i.e., the manner in which two (or more) individuals match,
Gatewood & Rosenwein, 1981, Ross, Cheyne, & Lollis, 1988). These
interactions (for exemplars, see Beebe, Stern, & Jaffe, 1979; Cappella,
1981; Cappella & Planalp, 1981; Condon, 1980; Condon & Ogston,
Nonverbal Signals
151
1967; Condon & Sander, 1974; Erickson & Shultz, 1982; Kempton,
(1991) asserts that, "...in combination with evidence from neonatal and
patterning may reflect rigidity and produce negative affect and dysfunction
Among the theories that have been advanced to predict and explain
Nonverbal Signals
152
(1965; Argyle & Cook, 1976) equilibrium theory, the norm of reciprocity
(Burgoon, Le Poire, & Rosenthal, 1992; Burgoon, Olney, & Coker, 1988;
Hale & Burgoon, 1984), discrepancy arousal theory (Cappella & Greene,
and the extent of empirical support for each of them can be found in
(1991). Although the research evidence is quite mixed and has yielded
which there are exceptions (Burgoon, Dillman, Stern, & Kelley, 1993;
Cappella, 1991).
Social Influence
This function will be discussed only briefly because other chapters cover it
have been studied run the gamut from expressed changes in attitude,
and arousal.
disciplines and is not easily synthesized, but it appears that much of it can
be subsumed under the following types of strategies, all of which have been
or clothing style). (See Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1989; Edinger &
Patterson, 1983; Exline & Fehr, 1978; Harris & Rosenthal, 1985; Heslin
& Alper, 1983: Knapp & Hall, 1992; Patterson, 1991; Rosenthal, 1985;
strategies).
communication are:
1. Contrary to the view that nonverbal cues play only a secondary and
weak influence role, nonverbal cues are proving to have direct impact on
relaxation (vocal, postural) (e.g., Brownlow, 1992; Buller & Aune, 1988,
1992; Buller, Le Poire, Aune, & Eloy, 1992; Burgoon, Birk, & Pfau,
through nonverbal cues, are often signalled within 30 seconds and are
1986; Patterson, Powell, & Lenihan, 1986). Thus, the popular advice
Summary
and artifacts. These codes and their constituent cues are coordinated with
one another and with the verbal stream to achieve particular functions or
the frequent but mistaken claim that nonverbal behaviors are inherently
Social functions for which such patterns have been identified include
consider how patterns might differ when interactions occur among familiar
References
Sage.
Brooks/Cole.
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (in press). Half a minute: Predicting teacher
Nonverbal Signals
162
Erlbaum.
Behavior, 8, 327-349.
Andersen, P. A., & Sull, K. K. (1985). Out of touch, out of reach: Tactile
Argyle, M., & Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge:
Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance and affiliation.
Argyle, M., Salter, V., Nicholson, H., Williams, M., & Burgess, P. (1970). The
Aronoff, J., Woike, B. A., & Hyman, L. M. (1992). Which are the stimuli
1050-1066.
Baglan, T., & Nelson, D. J. (1982). A comparison of the effects of sex and
Nonverbal Signals
165
The role of task difficulty, selection stage, and sex differences. Journal of
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Lemery, C. R., & Mullett, J. (1986). "I show how
Nonverbal Signals
166
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., Lemery, C. R., & Mullett, J. (1988).
14, 275-300.
Beebe, B., Stern, D., & Jaffe, J. (1979). The kinesic rhythm of
Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1980). States organizing
14, 141-154.
Nonverbal Signals
168
298-307.
Erlbaum.
University Press.
155-161.
Bull, P., & Connelly, G. (1985). Body movement and emphasis in speech.
Buller, D. B., & Aune, K. (1988). The effects of vocalics and nonverbal
Buller, D. B., & Aune, K. (1992). The effects of speech rate similarity on
Buller, D. B., Le Poire, B. A., Aune, R. K., & Eloy, S. V. (1992). Social
276-294.
Research, 4, 129-142.
233-259.
140-169.
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Ebesu, A., & Rockwell, P. (in press).
Communication Monographs.
131-146.
Burgoon, J. K., Le Poire, B. A., Beutler, L. E., Bergan, J., & Engle, D.
Nonverbal Signals
178
publication.
Burgoon, J. K., Manusov, V., Mineo, P. J., & Hale, J. L. (1985). Effects of
56, 96-113.
Burgoon, J. K., Parrott, R., Le Poire, B., Kelley, D., Walther, J., & Perry, D.
Relationships, 6, 131-158.
Burgoon, J. K., Pfau, M., Birk, T., & Manusov, V. (1987). Nonverbal
119-130.
Nonverbal Signals
180
Burgoon, J. K., Pfau, M., Parrott, R., Birk, T. Coker, R., & Burgoon, M.
Press.
232-265.
101-132.
239-264.
Cappella, J. N., & Planalp, S. (1981). Talk and silence sequences in informal
7, 117-132.
Clevenger, T., Jr. (1991). Can one not communicate? A conflict of models.
detecting deceit. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp.
12, 181-201.
Springer.
273-287.
Springer-Verlag.
Nonverbal Signals
190
Duncan, S., Jr. (1974). On signaling that it's your turn to speak. Journal of
Duncan, S., Jr. (1975). Interaction units during speaking turns in dyadic,
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders:
685-710.
Izard (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and personality (pp. 390-442). New York:
Springer.
(Eds.), Nonverbal
Erlbaum.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1975). Unmasking the face. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Ellsworth, P. (1972). Emotion in the human
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Tomkins, S. (1971). Facial affect scoring
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & O'Sullivan, M. (1988). Smiles when lying.
Nonverbal Signals
194
Ekman, P., & O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American
Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, M., Friesen, W. V., & Scherer, K. R. (1991). Face,
125-135.
Mouton.
Erlbaum.
Lawrence Erlbaum.
30-44.
McGraw-Hill.
Addison-Wesley.
(Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works
Fridlund, A. J., Sabini, J. P., Hedlund, L. E., Schaut, J. A., Shenker, J. I., &
14, 113-137.
766-775.
333-351.
133-145.
6, 12-29.
Giles, H., Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Johnson, P. (1987). Accommodation
Doubleday/Anchor Books.
Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places. New York: The Free Press.
Pennsylvania Press.
Press.
147-165.
Press/Doubleday.
Press/Doubleday.
Nonverbal Signals
203
Press.
363-386.
looks in everyday life. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Hendrick, S., & Hendrick, C. (1992). Liking, loving, & relating (2nd ed.).
47, 119-131.
155-170.
Prentice-Hall.
Johnson, K. L., & Edwards, R. (1991). The effects of gender and type of
John Wiley.
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kenny, D. A., Horner, C., Kashy, D. A., & Chu, L. (1992). Consensus at
interaction (3rd ed.). Ft. Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
61, 743-754.
What do you say when you say hello? Central States Speech Journal, 26,
115-125.
Association, Atlanta.
290-297.
Nonverbal Signals
215
Liska, J. (1986). Symbols: The missing link? In J. G. Else & P. Lee (Eds.),
104-118.
15-24.
388-408.
Nonverbal Signals
217
Therapy, 8, 29-48.
Mayo, C., & Henley, N. M. (Eds.). (1981). Gender and nonverbal behavior.
Nonverbal Signals
218
Sage.
McCornack, S. A., & Levine, T. T. (1990). When lovers become leery: The
Sage.
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought.
and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 271-295). Chichester:
John Wiley.
Nonverbal Signals
220
109-114.
Miller, G. R., Bauchner, J. E., Hocking, J. E., Fontes, N. E., Kaminski, E. P.,
& Brandt, D. R. (1981). "And nothing but the truth": How well can
York: Abrams.
Morris, D., Collett, P., Marsh, P., & O'Shaughnessy, M. (1979). Gestures.
Psychology, 5, 171-182.
1-22.
Mueser, K. T., Grau, B. W., Sussman, S., & Rosen, A. J. (1984). You're
469-478.
Behavior, 9, 28-47.
O'Leary, M. J., & Gallois, C. (1985). The last ten turns: Behavior and
41-50.
Pittinger, R., Hockett, C., & Darehy, J. (1960). The first five minutes.
Relationships, 9, 483-506.
Nonverbal Signals
226
Plutchik, R. (1962). The emotions: Facts, theories and a new model. New
Johns Benjamins.
266-276.
Reis, H. T., Wilson, I. M., Monestere, C., Bernstein, S., Clark, K., Seidl, E.,
Nonverbal Signals
228
Franco, M., Gioioso, E., Freeman, L., & Radoane, K. (1990). What is
259-267.
37, 170-83.
Ricci Bitti, P. E., & Poggi, I. (1991). Symbolic nonverbal behavior: Talking
Press.
Ridgeway, C. L., Berger, J., & Smith, L. (1985). Nonverbal cues and
90, 955-978.
Nonverbal Signals
229
222-239.
Erlbaum.
Rosenthal, R., Hall, J. A., DiMatteo, M. R., Rogers, P. L., & Archer, D.
Ross, H. S., Cheyne, J. A., & Lollis, S. P. (1988). Defining and studying
Rusbult, C. E., Verett, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991).
53-78.
Nonverbal Signals
232
52, 730-738.
R. N. St. Clair & H. Giles (Eds.), The social and psychological contexts of
Wadsworth.
(Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 65-99). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Smith, H. J., Archer, D., & Costanzo, M. (1991). "Just a hunch": Accuracy
Nonverbal Signals
235
3-18.
62, 154-158.
skills in decoding nonverbal channels: The value of face value. Basic and
Staley, C. C., & Cohen, J. L. (1988). Communicator style and social style:
282-299.
Storrs, D., & Kleinke, C. L. (1990). Evaluation of high and equal status
Nonverbal Signals
237
Street, R. L., Jr., Mulac, A., & Wiemann, J. M. (1988). Speech evaluation
333-363.
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Warner, R. M., Malloy, D., Schneider, K., Knoth, R., & Wilder, B. (1987).
57-74.
Arnold.
Wiener, M., Devoe, S., Rubinow, S., & Geller, J. (1972). Nonverbal behavior
Nonverbal Signals
241
1238-1250.
Willis, F. N., Jr., & Briggs, L. F. (1992). Relationship and touch in public
Woodall, W. G., & Folger, J. P. (1985). Nonverbal cue context and episodic
experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 2-59). New York: Academic
Press.
Zuckerman, M., & Driver, R. E. (1985). Telling lies: Verbal and nonverbal
67-82.
95-100.
60, 545-554.
Behavior, 6, 171-186.