Download Running head: NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION NONVERBAL

Running head: NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION
Nonverbal Communication Between Women and Strangers
Jason Hatcher
University of Kentucky
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION
Abstract
This paper is a literature review of academic sources that were researched on
nonverbal communication involving women and strangers. In one of the research
articles it talked about women and how their more likely to be sexually attacked by
their intimate partners than by strangers. Other academic sources discussed
nonverbal communication concepts such as micro-expressions regarding the face
and other emotional nonverbal cues. Also, another concept that was reviewed in this
paper was the “attraction of strangers.” These aspects will be compared to the
research by Adler and Proctor‘s 2013 textbook on nonverbal communication.
2
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION
Nonverbal Communcation:
Nonverbal Communication between Woman and Strangers
Communication between women and strangers is very misinterpreted in many cases.
However facial expressions are seen to play a significant role in social situations with
strangers and among friends (Wagner& Smith, 1991). There however, are many
dimensions when it comes to communication and interpretation of body language and
signals when looking at interaction of women and strangers. Although attitudes and
reactions are measured a lot by facial expressions, we can also assess the situations by
preferred social distances. The extent of various nonverbal behaviors, in which they are
associated with highly attractive people, where mimicry is determined by preferred social
distance, occurs when interacting with strangers. Some of the factors that play a role in
determining interactions between women and strangers are sometimes physical.
Nonetheless a major factor used to determine the interpretation of behavior between
women and strangers using non-verbal cues is facial expressions. This study looked at the
effect of the actual presence of a friend or of a stranger on their different facial
expressions. Everyone was videotaped and everyone was paired as friends or strangers.
The subjects were shown emotional slides in a slideshow and rated for each individual
emotional response of the participant. It was found that more expressions were identified
for women as paired with a friend than a stranger (Wagner& Smith, 1991). The study
concluded that expressions only depended on the role of the person that was accompanied
with them, i.e. friend or stranger (Wagner& Smith, 1991). Also, they believed facial
expressions played a significant role in social communications.
3
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION
Another major factor is the role of deception among intimates, friends, and
strangers was looked at in a study by Buller and Aune (1987). The investigators tested
how deceivers attempt to encode nonverbal cues, which predict a positive outcome
(Buller & Aune, 1987). The participants included 130 strangers, friends, and romantic
relationships. These scholars also examined the influence of relational history on
deception cues and the stability of deception cues within deceptive conversations (Buller
& Aune, 1987). The results of the study showed that deceivers signaled no immediacy,
arousal, and negative affect, but it also did not appear to create a positive image (Buller &
Aune, 1987). The last factor has to do with verbal and nonverbal interactions of strangers
in a waiting situation.
Mehrabian (1971) investigated verbal and nonverbal interaction of strangers; he
was specifically examining affiliation, liking, and relaxation between strangers. Subjects
in this study showed a positive or negative behavior regarding strangers and were
measured accordingly. Consequently, results showed a positive affect cue in speech and
nonverbal behavior. Those with higher tendency scores communicated more positive
affects and were more responsive to the positiveness they received from the stranger
(Mehrabian, 1971). In contrast as this researcher points out, the subjects that were slightly
negative with sensitivity to rejection showed vigilance. Also, tension was correlated with
respect to this study. Nonetheless, as shown by this study there was more tension during
interaction with others of higher status and also with the same-sex targets. Additionally,
females were more commonly related to tension with males and were more intimate and
submissive.
4
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION
Since there is reliable information from the different literature reviews, it is
evident that strangers have a significant impact on the way individuals act, including
women. Several of the factors that contributed to these nonverbal behaviors have now
been examined and it is concluded that women have distinct reactions to strangers versus
friends. It was found that more expressions were identified for women as paired with a
friend than a stranger (Wagner & Smith, 1991). Similarly, Mehrabian, (1971) basically
found the same results regarding higher status individuals and their relevance to tension.
It is important to note that results from the various literature reviews have been
summarized and are reported from the bases of the study. However, not all experiments
fully focused on specific gender differences, as my focus was strictly identifying women
behaviors. Limitations are mentioned for each of the given studies and placed on each of
these experiments that may have affected the results. Nonverbal communication will be
different depending on the factors that contribute to the situations and levels of conditions
women are put into with strangers.
Another study looked at relational history on deception cues and the stability of
deception cues within deceptive conversations (Buller & Aune ,1987). The results of the
study showed that deceivers signaled no immediacy, arousal, and negative affect, but it
did not appear to create a positive image. Cues of deception were determined by the
relational history and showed considerable temporal variation. Also, strangers leaked
more arousal and negative effects than friends and intimates. Furthermore, deceivers
deceiving friends and their intimates seemed to monitor and control their nonverbal
behavior during deception. As these researchers claim, this is done by suppressing
arousal and negative affect cues and moderating no immediate behavior.
5
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION
References
Buller, D. B., & Aune, R. K. (1987). Nonverbal cues to deception among intimates,
friends, and strangers. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 11(4), 269-290.
Farley, S. D. (2014). Nonverbal Reactions to an Attractive Stranger: The Role of
Mimicry in Communicating Preferred Social Distance. Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 1-14.
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Verbal and nonverbal interaction of strangers in a waiting
situation. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality.
Roloff, M. E. (). Attributing sexual consent. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, , 1-23.
Wagner, H. L., & Smith, J. (1991). Facial expression in the presence of friends and
strangers. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15(4), 201-214.
6
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION
7