Multichannel Integrations of Nonverbal Behavior

Aron Wolfe Siegman, Stanley Feldstein, Aron Wolfe Siegman, Stanley Feldstein

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9780898595666
• eBook ISBN: 9781317768135
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

First published in 1985. This book takes a multichannel perspective. The first three chapters are written from a distinctly functional perspective: the function of nonverbal behavior on interpersonal attraction, in the expression of emotions and in the control of conversations. They are followed by two topically organized chapters, namely, the role of nonverbal behavior in interpersonal expectancies and deceptive communications. They, in turn, are followed by a process-oriented discussion of the nature of nonverbal behavior. The book concludes with two contributions concerned with the demography of nonverbal behavior: the role of gender, class, and ethnicity (with the latter viewed from a cultural perspective). In each case, however, the chapter is organized, to the extent possible, from a multichannel perspective.

1	Nonverbal Immediacy in Interpersonal Communication

Peter A. Andersen

California State University, Long Beach

Fascination with nonverbal communication has permeated the academic community and their general population during the last two decades. Though the sophistication of their questions sets them apart, both groups have been captured by a need for greater understanding of the subtleties of communication. People are almost universally captivated by the prospect of gaining insight into their own messages and the messages of others. Researchers in psychology, communication, and a score of other disciplines have demonstrated their interest with a veritable explosion of research on nonverbal communication. Almost two decades ago, as interest in nonverbal communication was accelerating, Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967) maintained that communication is a conditio sine qua non for human life and social order and that much of communication was communicated at subtle nonverbal levels.

No function of nonverbal communication is more central to human interaction than the process of communicating warmth or intimacy to one another. Though called by a variety of names (intimacy, warmth, affect, immediacy, etc.), the exchange of harmonious messages is of importance in every human interaction, across a variety of contexts. Friends, parents, teachers, businesspeople, lovers, and leaders color each verbal message with affective meaning that comments on both that message and the relationship between the communicators. There is no affectively neutral message; every communication tells something about our interpersonal relationship.

The term immediacy is used to describe these messages because it is less connotative than warmth, intimacy, or some other terms that have wider possible interpretations (J. F. Andersen, 1984; Schaefer & Olson, 1981). Immediacy behaviors simultaneously communicate several complementary interpersonal messages:

1. Immediacy behaviors are approach behaviors. These actions signal other individuals that we are closer to them physically or psychologically. Sometimes such approach behaviors are blatant approaches as in the case of kisses, long gazes, or the large amounts of time spent with another person. Other times, immediacy is communicated in abbreviated forms of approach (Mehrabian, 1971a). A wave is an abbreviated hug. An open body position is an open invitation to come closer. The opposite of these displays communicates avoidance by blocking stimuli and increasing distance.

2. Immediacy behaviors signal availability for communication. Avoiding another’s eyes, closing an office door, or facing away from another person nonverbally tells another person the channel is closed and that communication will be difficult. The opposite behaviors, such as eye contact, closer distances, and open positions, invite and almost force another person to realize that communication is commencing. Goffman (1964) maintained that these behaviors come in sets that signal social availability.

3. Immediacy behaviors increase sensory stimulation. Literally dozens of interpersonal cues can individually or simultaneously stimulate another individual psychologically or physiologically. Later in this report the physiological evidence is reviewed in more depth (see Table 1.1.). Central to the issue of immediacy is that the senses are interpersonally stimulated by immediacy messages that are typically multichanneled (Mehrabian, 1971a).

4. Immediacy behaviors communicate interpersonal warmth and closeness. A number of researchers (J. F. Andersen, P. A. Andersen & Jensen, 1979; Exline & Winters, 1965; Mehrabian, 1971a) have noted that immediacy behaviors generally reduce psychological distance and create feelings of interpersonal closeness in positive relationships. In less positive or over-stimulated interactions, immediacy cues can have the opposite effect and can be overwhelming, suffocating, or viewed as a threat. The conditions that produce these reactions are discussed in some detail throughout this essay.

Immediacy can be communicated verbally (Wiener & Mehrabian, 1968) as well as nonverbally through word choice and sentence structure. In this essay our consideration of immediacy cues is confined to nonverbal expressions of immediacy. Nonverbal messages are communicated nonlinguistically and analogically and involve neurophysiological processes different from those of verbal messages (P. A. Andersen, Garrison, & J. F. Andersen, 1979). Though various definitions of nonverbal communication have been offered, ranging from restrictive to inclusive, this essay takes the position that any behavior performed in the presence of a receiver is potentially communicative. When the behavior produces a change in the cognitive or behavioral state of a receiver, communication has occurred.

COMPONENTS OF NONVERBAL IMMEDIACY

One problematic issue of the conceptualization and measurement of immediacy involves which nonverbal cues are actually part of the immediacy construct as defined above. Certainly, immediacy is a multidimensional, multichanneled construct embracing a number of different behaviors. Likewise, a cue that functions to communicate immediacy and interpersonal closeness in one context or relationship may communiate interest, aggression, or a host of other meanings in other circumstances. Nonverbal cues rarely have arbitrary, singular meanings and are not neatly conceptualized using verbal or linguistic models (P. A. Andersen, Garrison & J. F. Andersen, 1979). In the following section, each behavior that is discussed has been identified as part of the immediacy construct. Although theories of immediacy exchange are discussed in a subsequent section of this essay, representative effects on receiver attitudes are also examined. An assumption of this section is that immediacy cues are being exchanged in positive to neutral relationships as opposed to negative or hostile relationships. In most of our initial encounters with others (Coutts, Schneider, & Montgomery, 1980) strangers are perceived positively or neutrally. However, some individuals or some contexts may make strangers potentially threatening. As we see later, when approach behaviors are employed in negative or hostile relationships they will not be perceived as immediacy cues at all but will most likely generate negative affect and compensating responses.

Proxemics

Proxemics, the use of interpersonal space and distance, has been one of the most widely studied immediacy cues. At least four proxemic behaviors satisfy our definition of an immediacy behavior and have been researched as immediacy cues: physical distance, body angle or orientation, communicating on the same physical plane, and forward leaning.

Physical distance. Argyle (1972) maintained that intimacy (immediacy) is primarily a function of five nonverbal cues, the first being physical proximity. Considerable research has shown that interpersonal attraction is manifested by closer distances. Likewise, closer distances typically result in more interpersonal attraction. For example, Mehrabian and Friar (1969) reported that communicators interact at closer distances to people they like than to those they dislike. Similarly, Mehrabian and Ksionzky (1970) reported several studies that show that closer distances result in more positive attitudes. Kleck (1970) found more nonverbal agreement responses by receivers when a speaker stood at a closer interpersonal distance. Indeed, one report found that closer residential distance elicited greater friendship and liking in college dormitories (Priest & Sawyer, 1967).

The relationship between proximity and attraction is strongest among friends, less powerful for new acquaintances, and nonexistent or negative for enemies or persons with threat potential. Morton (1977) has shown that although acquainted dyads prefer close interpersonal distances, unacquainted pairs were more comfortable and intimate at intermediate distances. In a series of studies, Burgoon reported more compliance for rewarding communications (i.e., more attractive, credible, or of higher status) at distances closer than ordinary proxemic norms. Nonrewarding communicators were not positively perceived at intermediate distances (Burgoon, 1978; Burgoon & Aho, 1982). Studies of negative and positive interactions show an intensification effect. Closer distances make a negative interaction more negative, whereas positive interactions are more positive at closer distances (Schiffenbauer & Schiavo, 1976).

Body Orientation. A second proxemic behavior that signals immediacy is body angle or orientation. Several studies report that more immediacy is communicated when interactants face one another (J. F. Andersen, P. A. Andersen, & Jensen, 1979; Mehrabian, 1971a). Less immediacy is conveyed in side-to-side positions and least immediacy in a back-to-back position. Several studies have shown that close proxemic positions are often compensated with less direct body orientations (Harper, Wiens, & Matarazzo, 1978; Patterson, 1973b, 1977).

The Physical Plane. Several reports suggest that communicating on the same physical plane increases perceptions of immediacy. P. A. Andersen and J. F. Andersen (1982) suggested this is particularly important for elementary school teachers and parents who tower over children thereby decreasing availability for communication and immediacy. Likewise, tall adults communicating with shorter adults may decrease immediacy while standing erect. Brown (1965) has suggested that interacting on the same plane is a manifestation of interpersonal solidarity, a construct referencing interpersonal closeness. Little empirical research has examined the physical plane so its centrality to the immediacy construct is not fully known.

Forward Leans. Mehrabian (1971a) first suggested that forward leans are immediacy cues. Recently, empirical support for the inclusion of postural leans as part of the immediacy construct has been reported by Trout and Rosenfeld (1980). They found that although forward leans communicate greater rapport and immediacy, backward leans communicate no less immediacy than the upright position. In a recent study, Burgoon, Buller, Hale, and DeTurck (1984) found that forward leans communicated greater immediacy than backward leans.

Haptics

Haptic or tactile communication involves physical contact between people. Although dependent on cultural norms and the interpersonal relationship (Jourard, 1966; Trenholm & Petrie, 1980), normative touch is usually perceived as a warm, intimate behavior. Considerable research has included tactile messages as an important part of the immediacy construct (J. F. Andersen, 1979; J. F. Andersen, P. A. Andersen, & Jensen, 1979; Heslin, 1974; Heslin & Boss, 1980; Mehrabian, 1971a; Patterson, 1977). In a study of touching in an initial therapeutic relationship Pattison (1973) reported that clients who were touched more engaged in more depth of self-exploration with a therapist. This finding may be limited to therapeutic relationships since P. A. Andersen and Leibowitz (1978) found no substantial relationship (r<.22) between five dimensions of self-disclosure and tendency to approach, rather than to avoid touch.

In an interesting study of inconspicuous touches by college librarians, Fisher, Rytting, and Heslin (1976) found that females’ responses to touch were uniformly positive. Although some males also had a positive response, there was no significant difference for males between the touch no-touch condition. In a study of compliance gaining with strangers, Willis and Hamm (1980) reported that touch was more effective in getting a petition signed or survey completed than was no touch. The effect was strongest for same-gender compliance. In a bogus ESP experiment, Boderman, Freed, and Kinnucan (1972) r...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of Contributors
• Prologue
• 1. Nonverbal Immediacy in Interpersonal Communication
• 2. Expressive Correlates of Affective States and Traits
• 3. Controlling the Floor in Conversation
• 4. Nonverbal Cues in the Mediation of Interpersonal Expectancy Effects
• 5. Telling Lies: Verbal and Nonverbal Correlates of Deception
• 6. Vocal Paralanguage Without Unconscious Processes
• 7. Male and Female Nonverbal Behavior
• 8. Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Nonverbal Behavior
• Author Index
• Subject Index