Download Nonverbal Persuasion PPT

Nonverbal Persuasion
Overview of nonverbal
communication
Nonverbal communication is powerful
– Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall (1989) 60%
of the socio-emotional meaning of a
message is carried via nonverbal cues
• Nonverbal influence can be subtle
– Fisher, Rytting, & Heslin (1976): Library
patrons who received an “accidental”
touch were more likely to return books
on time
•
Overview continued
You cannot “read a person like a
book.”
– No one-to-one correspondence
between a particular nonverbal cue
and its specific meaning
– “individual difference perspective”:
nonverbal behavior is highly
idiosyncratic
• Not all of nonverbal communication
is obvious or “intuitive”
– Burgoon & Guererro (1994)
relationship between posture and liking
– eye contact and deception detection
•
Nonverbal persuasion in action
• Body Image:
– Media depictions of the ideal
female body type contribute
to body dissatisfaction and
eating disorders in women.
– the average American model
is 5'11" tall and weighs 117
pounds
– the average American woman
is 5'4" tall and weighs 140
pounds.
More nonverbal influence in
action
Nothing says “peace” and
“ecology” like getting naked
• anti-war activists: naked
dissidents spell “no war.”
• logging protesters: female
environmentalists bare their
breasts to stop loggers from
cutting down old growth
forests
•
Nonverbal persuasion in action
When Bush claimed “mission
accomplished” aboard the U.S.S.
Abraham Lincoln on May 1,
2003, the photo-op backfired as
the war went on and on
• Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe
malfunction” during the
Superbowl prompted the FCC to
clamp down on risqué shows
•
The Direct Effects model of
Immediacy
Andersen (1999): warm, involving,
immediate behaviors enhance the
persuasive effects of a message
– It is easier to comply with those we
like
– easier to trust warm, friendly people
• Single channel immediacy (eye contact)
increases compliance, as does multichannel immediacy (eye contact and
smiling)
•
Expectancy Violations Theory
• Buller & Burgoon (1986)
People have expectations about what constitutes
appropriate behavior in social situations
– example: elevator etiquette
• Violations of these expectations are perceived
positively or negatively, depending upon:
– the status, reward power of the communicator
– the range of interpretations that can be
assigned to the violation
– the perception/evaluation of the interpreted
act
•
Types of nonverbal cues
•
•
•
•
•
•
Proxemics (distance)
Vocalics (paralanguage)
Haptics (touch)
Chronemics (time)
Kinesics (behavior)
Artifacts (dress, belongings)
Proxemics
Edward Hall’s space zones
• Effective persuasion requires honoring
space zones (e.g. not violating
expectations negatively)
– Public distance: 12-25 feet
– Social or formal distance: 4-12 feet
• Most U.S. business relationships
begin in the Social Zone
– Personal or informal distance: 3
1/2/-4 feet
• Managers and co-workers who
enter the Personal Zone too
quickly risk conflict and distrust.
– Intimate distance: 18 inches or less
•
Segrin’s (1993) meta-analysis of
proxemics studies
“close” distance was typically operationalized as 1-2 ft., “far” was
usually 3-5 ft.
• of eight studies examined, “the effect for closer proximity was
consistent. Close space produces greater compliance than
distant space” (p. 173)
•
Advice on vocal delivery
A faster speech rate enhances perceptions of
credibility more than a slower speech rate
• Increasing intonation, volume, and pitch variation
increases perceptions of credibility
•
– Monotone speakers bore their audiences
•
Limiting or controlling nonfluencies
– Excessive “ums, uhs” decrease credibility
•
Use an assertive style of speaking
– conveys confidence and conviction
•
•
Minimize casual speech, “valley talk,” colloquialisms
Moderation should be exercised with all vocal cues
(avoid extremes in any one category)
Haptics (touch)
•
•
Self touch (adaptors) tend to decrease
credibility
The “Midas Touch” and compliance gaining
– Gueguen (2003) females boarding a bus
“discovered” they didn’t have a ticket. They
asked the driver to let them ride for free
• Drivers who were touched were more likely
to comply with the request than drivers who
weren’t touched
– Gueguen & Fischer-Lokou (2002): A person
asked a stranger to watch his or her large,
unruly dog for 10 minutes while he/she
went into a bank
• 55% of subjects who were touched
consented
• 35% of subject who weren’t touched
consented
– Crusco & Wetzel (1984), Hornick (1992)
food servers who used touch received
larger tips
Segrin’s (1993) meta-analysis of
touch studies
The most common experimental paradigm
involves light touch on the upper arm or
shoulder while making a request
• Of 13 studies examined, “it can be concluded
touch always produces as much, and in many
cases more compliance than no touch, all other
things being held equal” (p. 174)
•
More on touch and compliance
gaining
Why is touch so persuasive?
– Conveys immediacy, warmth
– Increases liking
– Serves as a distraction
• Caution: too much touch can backfire
– May be perceived as a negative
violation of expectations, e.g.,
insincere, coercive, or a form of
sexual harassment
•
Chronemics
Time spent waiting confers power, status
– example: M.D.s and patients
– example: Professors and students
• Tardiness can negatively impact credibility
– Burgoon et al (1989): late arrivers were
considered more dynamic, but less
competent, less sociable than those
who were punctual
• There are huge cultural differences in timeconsciousness
•
Cultural differences in
perceptions of time
• Western culture: M-time
emphasizes precise
schedules, promptness,
time as a commodity
–
–
–
–
–
“time is money”
“New York minute”
“Down time”
“Limited Time Offer!”
“Must Act Now”
• Other cultures: P-time
cultures don’t value
punctuality as highly,
don’t emphasize precise
schedules
– “island time”
– Sioux Indians have no
spoken words for “late”
or “tardy”
Time as a sales strategy
• Urgency as a sales tactic
– must act now, limited time offer, first come
first serve
– Time windows; shop early and save, super
savings from 7am-10am
– 1 hour photo, Lenscrafters, Jiffy Lube, drive
through banks, etc.
• Non-urgency as a sales strategy
– 90 days same as cash
– No No No sales
– mega-bookstores that encouraging browsing,
lingering
Kinesics (movement, gesture,
posture, facial expression, eye
contact)
Beebe (1974) eye contact and perceptions
of honesty
• Eye contact and compliance gaining
– Robinson, Seiter, & Acharya (1992)
successful panhandlers establish eye
contact
– Kleinke (1989) compared legitimate
and illegitimate requests when using
eye contact
– LaFrance &Hecht (1995) greater
leniency for cheaters who smiled
•
Segrin’s (1993) meta-analysis
of gaze studies
Gueguen & Jacob (2003): Direct gaze
produced greater compliance with a request
to complete an oral survey than an evasive
glance
• Gaze has been studied in the context of
hitchhiking, borrowing change, handing out
pamphlets, obtaining change, donating
money for a charity
• “gaze produced greater compliance than gzae
aversion in every one of the 12 studies” (p.
173)
•
Kinesics: facial expression
•
Birdwhistle (1970): the face
is capable of conveying
250,000 expressions
Kinesics: smiling
Smiling increases sociability,
likeability, attraction
• LaFrance & Hecht (1995) Smiling
students who were charged with
academic dishonesty received
greater leniency
• Heslin & Patterson (1982):
smiling by food servers increased
tips
• Excessive smiling can hinder
credibility
•
Kinesics: body language
DePaulo (1982): “mirroring” body language facilitates compliance
• McGinley, LeFevre, & McGinley (1975): an “open” body posture is
perceived as more persuasive than a “closed” posture
•
Kinesics: gestures, appearance,
height and weight
•
•
Gestures can send subtle or not so subtle cues
Physical appearance
– Mixed messages in women’s magazines
– Brownlow & Zebrowitz (1990): baby faced
versus mature face persuaders and
credibility
– Height and weight:
• Knapp & Hall (1992) survey of height
and starting salaries
• Height and perceived credibility
• Argyle (1988) endomorphs more likely
to be discriminated against
Artifacts
Material objects as an extension of
the self
• Uniforms and compliance gaining
– Lawrence & Watson (1991):
requests for contributions were
greater when requesters wore
uniforms
– Bickman (1971): change left in a
phone booth was returned to well
dressed people 77% of the time,
poorly dressed people only 38%
of the time
– Clothing signifies authority
• Example: Milgram (1974)
•
Clothing and status factors
•
Gueguen (2003) Shoppers were
less likely to report a welldressed shoplifter than a
casually dressed or poorly
dressed shoplifter.
– Neatly dressed: suit & tie
(90% did not report)
– Neutral: Clean jeans, teeshirt and jacket, moccasins
(63% did not report)
– Slovenly: Dirty jeans, torn
jacket, sneakers (60% did
not report)
More on clothing and status
factors
• Gueguen & Pichot (2001):
pedestrians at a cross-walk were
more likely to “jaywalk” by following
a well-dressed person across an
intersection displaying a red light
– Control condition: 15.6%
violations of do not walk signal
– Well-dressed: 54.5% violations
– Casually dressed: 17.9% violations
– Poorly dressed: 9.3% violations
Segrin’s (1993) meta-analysis of
apparel studies
Operationalizations of clothing or attire were
quite diverse (hippie, professional, bum,
formal, uniform, etc.)
• In general “the more formal or high status
the clothing, the greater the compliance rate
obtained” (p. 177)
•
Attractiveness and social
influence
Stewart (1980) studied the relationship between
attractiveness and criminal sentencing
– handsome defendants were twice as likely to
avoid a jail sentence
• Benson, Kerabenic, & Lerner (1976): both sexes
were likely to comply with a request for aid or
assistance if the other was attractive
•