Download A. Smiling While Bowling

Impression
Management
You never get a second
chance to make a first
impression . . .
Nonverbal Communication
Definition:

The way in which people communicate,
intentionally or unintentionally, without words
Types of nonverbal communication:

facial expressions, tones of voice, gestures,
body position and movement, touch, and eye
gaze
Uses of Nonverbal Communication
1)Express emotion
2)Convey attitudes
3)Communicate
personality traits
4)Facilitate, or modify
verbal communication
5) Repeat, or
compliment the
spoken language
6) Contradict verbal
communication
7) Substitute for the
verbal message
Facial Expressions
What are these babies experiencing?
Happiness
Sadness
Fear
Anger
Disgust
Surprise
Smile Detection
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/
mind/surveys/smiles/index.shtml
Women are better encoders and decoders
of nonverbal cues. Why?
Nonverbal Behavior
(Kraut & Johnson, 1979)
B. Smiling While Watching
Hockey
A. Smiling While Bowling
Facing Pins
Facing
Companions
Other
outcomes
Percent of Time Smiling
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Strikes/Spares
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Good
Outcomes
Fans Alone
Fans Interacting
Bad
Outcomes
Facial Displays are Socially
Motivated
Fridlund (1991)
Participants viewed funny film
under 1 of 4 conditions




Alone
Friend in other room doing
another task
Friend in other room watching
same film
Friend in room with you
Measures: Smiling (EMG) and
self-reported happiness
What was found??
It is relatively easy to control facial expressions
so we look to other nonverbal cues to provide
additional information:
• Eye contact
• Body movements
• Posture (and gait)
• Touching (and interpersonal distance)
Nonverbal “Leakage”


Definition: the unintentional transmission of
information through nonverbal channels of
communication.
Might occur because
(a) don’t think to control nonverbals
(b) aren’t able to control nonverbals
(c) try too hard to control


Voice leaks more easily
Women pick up on “leaks” more than men
Lie Detection
Two Truths and a Lie
Individual Differences in Lie
Detection
(Aamodt & Mitchell, 2004)
Group
Criminals
Accuracy %
65.40
Secret service
64.12
Psychologists
Judges
Cops
Federal officers
61.56
59.01
55.16
54.54
Students
Detectives
54.20
51.16
Parole officers
40.42
Deceptive Behaviors
(DePaulo et al, Psychological Bulletin, 2003)
120 studies / 158 behaviors
4992 participants
25% non–U.S.
DePaulo 2003
Liars:



Make a more negative impression and are more
tense
Less forthcoming than truth tellers
Tell less compelling tales
Made statements that were not as plausible, logical, or
consistent with other statements
Provided fewer details in their statements

Their stories include fewer ordinary imperfections and
unusual contents.
Were less likely to admit a lack of memory
Made fewer spontaneous corrections