Download Nonverbal communication (Encyclopedia)

By LaFrance, Marianne
In Kazdin, Alan E. (Ed). (2000). Encyclopedia of psychology,
N O N V E R B A L C O M M U N I C A T I O N 463
Vol. 5. (pp. 463-466). American Psychological Association.
508 pp. Springer-Verlag. The most comprehensive of recent sta- tions. In fact, personality psychologists and psychotistical treatments of propensity scores, sensitivityanalyses, and other issues in nonrandomized designs.
Schlesselman, J. J. (1982). Case-control studies: Design, conduct, analysis. New ’fork Oxford University Press. An
excellent introduction to the case-control method from
epidemiology.
William R. Shadish
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION refers to the expression and perception of nonlinguistic signals between people. The core assumption is that people cannot not communicate since human communication is
a multichannel process that includes a good deal more
than words. Early on. some proposed that most communication in face-to-face encounters takes place in
the nonverbal realm. That idea, now generally regarded
as an overstatement, nonetheless has led psychologists
and other communication scholars to substantiate the
idea that nonverbal communication serves numerous
social-psychological functions.
Nonverbal communication subsumes several categories of human expressiveness such as facial displays
(including eye contact and gaze behavior), gesture and
body movement, posture and body orientation, touch,
human spacing and territorial behavior, and vocal and
paralinguistic behavior. Some explications also include
physical attractiveness. babyfacedness, and other physical attributes, odor, and features such as hair, clothing,
and adornment. Thes.e latter aspects, however, are less
frequently included under the nonverbal communication rubric since they are more static than messages
sent and received in ongoing interactions.
Although Darwin is often seen as initiating the scientific study of nonvwbal behavior with The Expression
of the Emotions in M m and Animals in 1872, social scientific work in this area began in earnest in the midtwentieth century. Birdwhistell (1970). an anthropologist, coined the term kinesics for the study of
communication via body movement: Hall (1959). also
an anthropologist, instigated study of interpersonal
space and human territorial behavior which has become known as the study of proxemics: Goffman (1959),
a sociologist, carved out the field of face-to-face interaction which describes how nonverbal behavior affects
and reflects interpersonal dynamics: and &man began
his studies on the psychological import of affect displags
(Ekman eL Friesen. 1969).
For psychologists., nonverbal communication has
been used to understand processes at several levels of
psychological analysis: the individual, the interpersonal, and the structural. Individual differences in some
personality traits are reflected in characteristic nonverbal behaviors as are some psychopathological condi-
therapists have long speculated that a person’s
nonverbal behavior disclosed aspects of disposition or
character that a person cannot or will not reveal in
words. Early on, Allport and Vernon (1933) provided
detailed descriptions of how personality is revealed in
expressive style. More recently, the aim has been directed toward documenting relationships between interpersonal traits and particular patterns of nonverbal
behavior. For example, extroverts tend to engage in
more eye contact, to adopt smaller spacing, and to display more facial expressivity than those who are less
extroverted. There are also individual differences in social skills associated with nonverbal behavior, such as
the ability to accurately perceive and interpret the nonverbal cues of others, a trait usually referred to as nonverbal sensitivity. Nonverbal cues have also been used
diagnostically to assess and differentiate psychopathological conditions such as depression and schizophrenia.
Also at the individual level of analysis, a substantial
body of work has focused on documenting the relationship between particular emotions and particular facial expressions. Several investigators, following in Darwin’s footsteps, have proposed that there is a direct
biological link between the triggering of basic emotions
and the subsequent display of particular facial expressions (Ekman, 1972). However, controversy continues
as to how universally or culturally variant these relationships are (Russell, 1994).
At an interpersonal level of analysis, nonverbal
communication is useful for understanding various dyadic and group processes. According to one view, nonverbal behaviors are instructive about three key dimensions of interpersonal relationships: immediacy (i.e.,
how positive or close individuals feel toward others),
status (i.e., whether individuals have higher, equal, or
lower standing with respect to others), and responsiveness (i.e,, how active and focused an individual’s communication is: Mehrabian, 1969).
With respect to immediacy, research has explored
the role that nonverbal behaviors play in reflecting the
quality of attachment between infants and caretakers.
Developmental researchers, for example, have described
the degree to which the body movements of infants are
temporally synchronized with those of various caregivers. Among adults, a frequently explored topic is the
role that nonverbal behaviors play in communicating
attraction-aversion and in creating and reflecting interpersonal rapport. There are indications, for example,
that nonverbal synchrony or the degree to which participants adopt similar body movements or postures reflects the extent to which those individuals are in accord with one another (LaFrance, 1979). Evidence also
shows that when people like each other, they tend to
adopt smaller interpersonal spaces and more direct
464
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION
body orientation, engage in more eye contact, show
more positive facial expressions, and use more gestures.
As to status, nonverbal behaviors have been found
to reflect differences in social power. For instance, Dovidio and his colleagues have shown that people with
higher power are more likely to show visual dominance
(Dovidio, Ellyson, Keating, Heltman, & Brown, 1988).
Specifically, visual dominance describes the ratio of
how much a person looks at the other while speaking
compared to how much he or she looks while listening.
People higher in power or dominance look about the
same whether they are listening or speaking, while
those lower in power or dominance look more while
listening than while speaking.
There are other nonverbal indicators of status differences between people. Specifically, it appears that
those with higher status or power have more options
than lower power people with respect to the nonverbal
behaviors they display. For example, a person with
higher power may look or not at a lower status person,
may approach very closely or maintain some considerable distance, may smile or not depending on how
positive he or she feels, or may adopt a very relaxed or
decorous posture with respect to a lower power other.
In contrast, lower power people in the company of their
superiors appear to adopt a more predictable and narrower range of nonverbal behavior.
Finally, the responsiveness dimension of interpersonal relationships appears to be cued by nonverbal behaviors. Specifically, people are more nonverbally expressive when they are in the company of other people
and especially when they are attempting to influence
others. There are also indications that some nonverbal
behaviors such as gaze direction are useful in the communication of a particular kind of responsiveness,
namely sexual interest or flirtatiousness.
Nonverbal behaviors have also been implicated in
those interpersonal encounters when people engaged in
deception or when perceivers believe that they are being deceived, although the jury is still out as to whether
there are any cues that reliably indicate when someone
is lying. Freud, for example, argued that were one to
pay close attention to nonverbal behavior, one would
be convinced that nobody can keep a secret. Indeed, a
substantial line of research within nonverbal communication has focused on the processes involved in deception; asking, for example, whether people who lie
reveal that they are doing so via changes in facial display, vocal intonation, gaze aversion, and gesture
(DePaulo & Friedman, 1998). A related question is
whether perceivers are able to detect deception in others when they have visual and/or vocal access to persons who are actually being deceptive or who are believed to be engaged in deception. As to the former
question, the conclusion is that changes in facial expressions do not reliably denote the presence of deceit.
Nor can perceivers rely on particular cues to consistently signal that a person is lying (DePaulo & Friedman, 1998).
Interpersonal interactions also involve a significant
component of self-presentation which is typically accomplished through the deliberate use of nonverbal behaviors. There are occasions, for instance, where people
aim to have others see them in particular ways, such
as being credible or modest or competent, even though
it appears that perceivers are inclined to take these
presentations at face value. According to DePaulo
(1992).success at regulating nonverbal behaviors to
promote particular self-portrayals depends on knowledge, skill, practice, experience, confidence, and motivation.
At a more structural level, nonverbal communication has proved useful in understanding how occasions
of social interaction are organized. The idea here is that
participants draw on known repertoires of verbal and
nonverbal behaviors in order to be able successfully to
carry out a host of interpersonal transactions such as
greetings and farewells, signaling listening or managing speaker-listener conversational turn taking, and
conveying and accepting apologies, compliments, and
the like. Social rituals such as these appear to be automatic as does much of nonverbal behavior. They also
occur mostly out of awareness, but close study of how
people negotiate the myriad and mundane interpersonal encounters of everyday life suggest that people
are exquisitely knowledgeable about and sensitive to the
placement of the right nonverbal cues in the right
place.
Questions of how various groups differ nonverbally
speaking are also structural in the sense that gender,
ethnic, cultural, class, and age groups are thought to
display characteristic patterns of nonverbal behavior.
Such inquiries have inspired debate about the degree to
which nonverbal behaviors are influenced by innate
versus cultural factors.
Gender has proven to be a fertile ground for the investigation of group differences in nonverbal behaviors.
The evidence indicates that women are more facially
and vocally expressive than men, that they signal more
social engagement with others via such behaviors as
smiling and gazing, and that they are more sensitive to
the nonverbal cues of others than are men (Deaux &
LaFrance. 1998). Nonetheless, the reasons for these differences are in dispute. Evolutionary psychologists tend
to argue that the observed differences are due to genetic
differences between the sexes: that is, women are more
nonverbally expressive because it behooves the female
to be especially demonstrative given her role as primary
caregiver. Developmental psychologists, on the other
hand, are more likely to point to evidence that suggests
that females and males learn how to display genderappropriate nonverbal behavior. Social psychologists
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION
point to differences in social roles, social expectations,
and social status to explain why the nonverbal behavior
of men differs from that of women.
Cultural variations have been described for many
types of nonverbal behavior. For example, researchers
have distinguished between “contact” and “noncontact” groups with the former showing smaller interpersonal distances, more direct body orientation, and more
touching and eye conlact. More generally, it appears
that there are characteristic expressive and gestural
patterns associated with speaking different verbal languages, so that, for example, speakers of French or Italian or Japanese have distinctive ways of moving their
hands and faces while engaged in conversation.
Nonverbal communcation researchers have, to date,
given a great deal of attention to facial expressions,
seeing in them a singular locus for the communication
of emotion. For those who display them, facial expressions have been shown to contribute to the activation
and regulation of emotion experiences as well as eliciting emotional states in expressors themselves, a phenomenon known as the facial feedback hypothesis. The
facial feedback hypothesis maintains that facial expressions such as smiling or grimacing are not merely readouts of underlying affect but can themselves bring
about or at least modify experienced emotion by those
who show them. In fact, Darwin suggested that facial
feedback (sensations created by the movements of expressive behavior) activate or contribute to the activation of emotion feelings. A number of experiments have
provided substantial evidence that intentional management of facial expression contributes to the regulation
(and perhaps activation) of emotion experiences. Most
evidence is related not to specific emotional feelings but
to the broad classes of positive and negative states of
emotion. Studies of motivated, self-initiated expressive
behaviors have shown that, if people can control their
facial expression during moments of pain, there will be
less arousal of the autonomic nervous system and diminution of the pain experience.
Facial expressions of emotion communicate something about internal states to others as well as activating emotions in others, a process that can help account
for empathy and sensitivity. There has been the suggestion, for example, that perceivers of facial expressions sometimes eng,ige in “facial mimicry” which is
associated with feeling what the expressor is feeling.
The social communication function of emotion expressions is most evident in infancy. Long before infants
have command of language, they can send a wide variety of messages through their facial expressions. Virtually all the muscles necessary for facial expression of
basic emotions are present at birth. Through the use
of an objective. anatomically based system for coding
the separate facial muscle movements, it has been
found that neonates have the ability to smile and to
facially express pain, interest, and disgust. Babies as
young as 3 to 4 weeks can display a social smile: other
emotions come somewhat later. Sadness and anger are
shown usually by about 2 months: and fear by 6 or 7
months. Informal observations suggest that expressions
indicative of shyness appear by about 4 months and
expressions of guilt by about 2 years.
It is also apparent that very young children are responsive to the facial expressions of others. Research
has shown that, when mothers display sadness expressions, their infants also demonstrate more sadness expressions and decrease their exploratory play. Infants
under 2 years of age respond to their mother’s real or
simulated expressions of sadness or distress by making
efforts to show sympathy and provide help. And research has shown that infants will cross a modified ’*visual cliff” (an apparatus consisting of a glass floor that
gives the illusion of a drop-off) if their mother stands
on the opposite side and smiles, but none cross if she
expresses fear. In addition. infants cry in response to
other infants’ cries but not to a computer-generated
sound that simulates crying.
Microanalysis of facial movements from video records have shown that small changes in particular constellations of facial muscles reveal important psychological processes. For example, facial expressions can
differentiate between distressed and nondistressed couples, reveal the extent to which people really find sexist
humor amusing, distinguish embarrassment from
shame, and reflect different reactions to female than to
male leaders among other processes.
Gaze behavior has been studied for several reasons.
First, eye behavior is often one part of a whole facial
display, such as the downward gaze that accompanies
feelings of embarrassment. People also look more at
those with whom they seek contact or engagement,
and eye contact or mutual gaze is thought to say something about the degree to which people are actually
involved with one another, either positively or negatively. As noted above, the timing of looking relative to
talking has also been found to be important. In addition, studies indicate that eye behavior plays an important role in regulating various aspects of conversation,
such as monitoring attention or seeking responses or
negotiating the exchange of speaker and listener roles.
Body movements and gestures can also be communicative. First, there are speech-independent gestures
known as emblems which can be translated into a few
words quite easily and are often used as a substitute for
words. For example, in North America, the joining of
the thumb and index finger on one hand with the other
fingers upright means that things are “OK.” Typically,
the meaning of emblems are culturally specific. Next,
there are speech-related gestures, often referred to as
illustrators which accompany the verbal stream. Illustrators can anticipate, supplement, or complete verbal
465
466
NON-WESTERN THERAPIES
description by depicting metaphorical as well as literal
relationships: they can accent and emphasize verbal
points; and they can deliberately or inadvertently contradict verbal statements. The latter have sometimes
been termed leakage cues or clues to deception. Other illustrators, sometimes referred to as interaction gestures,
assist in directing the flow of conversation and effecting
processes of inclusion or exclusion. And the presence
of gestures by speakers tend to have the effect of forestalling verbal intrusion by listeners.
There are also body movements that are directed
toward oneself. These gestures, sometimes referred to
as self-adapters, include self-touching behaviors like
stroking oneself or twirling one’s hair. Researchers
have hypothesized that self-touching behaviors occur in
situations in which people are experiencing psychological discomfort.
The literal distances that people adopt vis-a-vis each
other, sometimes known as territoriality, appear to
change depending on individual proclivities, interpersonal context, and cultural differences. Although people tend to move closer to those with whom they want
more involvement, the behavior can sometimes trigger
feelings of being invaded. Many studies have shown
that too close approach by strangers is often met with
withdrawal either by moving away or by other nonverbal signs of rejection, such as hostile glances and turning or leaning away. These observations led to the more
general idea that depending upon the nature of the
interpersonal relationship at hand, there is an appropriate level of nonverbal immediacy. According to the
intimacy-equilibrium hypothesis, too close or too distant interactions will be met with a corresponding correction in nonverbal behavior. So if one person is perceived to be looking too much or standing too close,
the target can respond by orienting their eyes or their
bodies away from the intrusive other.
Lastly, vocal cues like loudness, pitch, and tempo,
and voice characteristics like breathiness, nasality, and
raspiness lead perceivers, not always wisely, to assume
that they are indicators of personality. Although some
personality characteristics may be associated with particular vocal attributes, the research tends for the most
part to show that there is greater agreement among
perceivers as to what vocal characteristics go with what
traits than there is actual accuracy. However, evidence
does suggest that various emotional states are associated with distinctive vocal patterns. For instance, elation is associated with higher average frequency,
greater frequency range and variability, higher loudness, and faster rate.
In sum, nonverbal communication subsumes many
different channels and is used in the service of many
psychological and social functions. It is also highly variable across place and group with the consequence that
there is no one-to-one correspondence between any
nonverbal cue and any specific psychological disposition or state. Nonetheless, human beings use a substantial array of nonverbal behaviors for communicating intended and unintended messages.
[See also Sign Languages.]
Bibliography
Allport, G. W.. & Vernon, P. E. (1933). Studies in expressive
movement. New York: Macmillan.
Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and context: Essays on
body motion communication. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions in man
and animals. London: John Murray.
Deaux, K.. & LaFrance, M. (1998). Gender. In D. T. Gilbert,
S. T. Fiske, & G . Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social
psychology (4th ed., Vol. I. pp. 788-827). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
DePaulo, B. M., & Friedman. H. S. (1998). Nonverbal communication. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, 8.1 G. Lindzey
(Eds.),The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2,
pp. 3-40), New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dovidio, J. F., Ellyson, S. L.. Keating, C. F., Heltman. K.. &
Brown, C. E. (1988). The relationship of social power
to visual displays of dominance between men and
women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54?
233-242.
Ekman, P. (1972). Universals and cultural differences in
facial expressions of emotion. In J. K. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1971 (pp. 207-283).
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Ekman. P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage and coding.
Semiotica, I, 49-98.
Freud, S. (1959). CoZlected papers. New York: Basic Books.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life.
Garden City, NY Doubleday Anchor.
LaFrance, M. (1979). Nonverbal synchrony and rapport:
Analysis by the cross lag panel technique. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 66-71.
Mehrabian. A. (1969). Significance of posture and position
in the communication of attitude and status relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 71. 359-372.
Russell, J. A. (1994). Is there universal recognition of emotion from facial expression? A review of the crosscultural studies. PsychoZogicaZ Bulletin, 115, 102-141.
Marianne LaPrance
NON-WESTERN THERAPIES. Non-Western alternatives to talk therapy include many different means of
restoring a client’s healthy balance. The label Western
reflects more of a political than geographic reality in
the counseling literature, with many Westernized influences in non-Western geographic areas and vice versa.
It is an oversimplification to polarize Western and non-