Successful Nonverbal Communication

Principles and Applications

Michael Eaves, Dale G. Leathers

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781134881253
• Edition: 5
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Successful Nonverbal Communication: Principles and Applications demonstrates how knowledge of nonverbal messages can affect successful communication in the real world. Now with fifteen chapters, the fifth edition draws students in through applications of the latest nonverbal communication research and through current examples of celebrities, sports, and politicians. This extensive revision describes nonverbal cues and their desirable and undesirable functions while offering original tests for measuring and developing nonverbal communication skills. Updates include new attention to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, and discussion of nonverbal communication within same-sex partnerships.

Part 1
Nonverbal Communication

Chapter 1
The Nature of Nonverbal Communication

Human interaction is a quest for meaning. We look anxiously to others to determine whether we have communicated our intended meaning. We are concerned that we may have communicated unintended meanings that will negatively affect the image we wish to project. If we are skilled in the art of impression management, we may cultivate a certain look or sound that is designed to control the judgments that people make about us. Politicians in the 2016 presidential campaign turned to nonverbal consultants to make sure they had a positive voice and use of gestures in their speeches, even Donald Trump to an extent. Hillary Clinton testified before congress about the Benghazi hearing. Throughout, she was dressed in a professional manner and maintained a great deal of poise to communicate her transparency and honesty to government officials. A recent study by Rudrow and Eaves (2016) revealed that Hillary’s nonverbal communication during that hearing was positive and professional. She exhibited good eye contact, appeared relaxed and confident, and used a voice that was in control and authoritative.

The individuals with whom we communicate are also on guard. They look apprehensively at us to judge whether they have accurately perceived our intentions. Do our communicative behaviors accurately reflect our inner feelings, or do they represent a carefully controlled presentation of self?

Consider the following situations. You and a female friend are at a fraternity party on your first date. As the evening progresses and the second keg of beer is tapped, you notice that your date’s hand is resting lightly on your arm; you can detect a strong and rather rapid pulse. You make your judgments as to what your date is communicating to you. Later, you fidget on the doorsteps of the sorority house. Suddenly, you lean forward to kiss your date, but she turns her face away from you, recoils, and walks briskly into the sorority house. You are left alone to ponder the complexities of the evening’s communication situation.

Four years later, you are about to be interviewed by the head of a major advertising firm. The job interview is vitally important to you. You realize that you must communicate effectively if you are to get the job offer. As you enter the interview room, you introduce yourself to the advertising executive and she offers you a seat on the other side of a small table. You feel that it is important to sustain eye contact, and you attempt to do so. The executive often looks away from you as she speaks, however. She frequently leans far back in her chair. You think you are doing well. As the interview concludes, you cannot help but notice that the advertising executive has her chin tilted up into the air and is looking down at you over her glasses. While looking at you, she remarks that she has found your résumé to be most unusual. You are then left alone to ponder the communication situation.

Figure 1.1 Donald Trump Pictured on the 2016 Campaign Trail

Andrew Cline/shutterstock.com

You could interpret these two situations in a number of different ways. Your goal is to determine what meanings you communicated and what meanings were communicated to you. To achieve such a goal you must recognize at least two facts. First, great differences often exist between what you think you communicated and what the other person actually perceived. Second, meanings may be communicated through a great variety of channels.

You may have interpreted your date’s hand on your arm as an invitation to more intimate behavior later in the evening; the quickened pulse may have suggested a certain amount of arousal. Your date’s perception of the situation may differ. The hand on your arm could be a sympathetic response to your nervous mannerisms. The quickened pulse may have been triggered by your date’s apprehension about what actions you would take on the dorm steps. You needed more information and time before attempting a thorough analysis of this situation.

In addition, the job interview is difficult to interpret. You have more facts at your disposal, however. You wisely focused on important factors in this situation. You should not be disturbed by the fact that the interviewer looked away from you as she spoke; this is characteristic eye behavior in an interview situation. You should, however, be concerned about the interviewer’s tendency to lean far back in the chair. Body lean is the best indicator of an individual’s involvement in a situation. Your biggest problem is the ambiguous message your interviewer conveyed to you (her chin was tilted in the air as she said, “I find your résumé to be most unusual”). The verbal and nonverbal cues convey conflicting meanings. Unhappily for you, the nonverbal cue—the upraised chin, in this case—is apt to be a much more accurate indicator of your interviewer’s true feelings than the verbal cue.

Both situations emphasize what society has been slow to recognize: human beings do not communicate by words alone. Individuals have many sensory mechanisms that play a vital role in interpersonal communication. Undeniably, we speak and hear, but we also move, touch, and feel. As communicators, we have a multidimensional capacity.

Figure 1.2 Here a woman is pictured at her job interview.

Andrey_Popov/shutterstock.com

Some publications have drawn attention to nonverbal communication. Yet, some of them may have had some undesirable side effects. They may have helped to create the misleading notion that knowledge of nonverbal communication is chiefly useful to investigate and invigorate a communicator’s sex life.

The functional importance of nonverbal communication is hardly limited to the semantics of sex. Leathers and Eaves (2008) documented that nonverbal cues serve a wide variety of valuable functions in the development of social relationships. Increasingly, the determinants of successful communication in real-world contexts are frequently nonverbal. To disregard the functions served by nonverbal cues is to invite unflattering characterization as an in sensitive and inept communicator. To manage one’s nonverbal cues in a successful manner casting a desired image to others is a hallmark of this edition of the book.

Most of us spend a great deal of time attempting to persuade others, to be liked or loved by others, to control others, and to enhance our own self-image. Whatever our communicative goal, the nonverbal channels of communication frequently function effectively to help us attain that goal. To persuade others, for example, you must usually convince them of your honesty, sincerity, and trustworthiness. Think back to the last congressional hearing you watched on TV. Did you think the witness was honest or trustworthy on the basis of what the person said, or how the person said it?

Consider your attempts to develop an intimate relationship with another person. Did you assess the level of intimacy of the relationship primarily on the basis of the words that were spoken, or on the basis of the implicit messages communicated by nonverbal cues? Did you attempt to communicate your own feelings primarily by words or by nonverbal cues?

In addition, think about those instances of face-to-face interaction when you tried to control the communicative behavior of another. Among the primary means of control at your disposal were your gestures, posture, and the immediate space that separated you.

Finally, ponder the great amount of time you spend trying to attain or to retain a positive self-image. To a very large degree, your self-image and social identity are shaped by your personal appearance. This image is controlled to a striking extent by nonverbal factors unrelated to the content of your speech.

The Functional Importance of Nonverbal Communication

When we write of the functional significance of nonverbal communication, the obvious question is what do we mean by functional? The answer is complex. Basically, the function of communication is the creation of meaning. The functional significance of nonverbal communication, therefore, is related to: (a) the purposes for which meanings are communicated (information, persuasion, and so on); (b) the accuracy with which meanings are communicated (facial communication has more potential than tactile communication, for example); and (c) the efficiency with which meanings are communicated (the time and effort required for the communication of meanings). In the next section of this chapter we will address the complex task of defining nonverbal communication.

Viewed from these perspectives, nonverbal communication has great functional significance. In many situations, persons can more easily achieve their communicative purpose by improving the accuracy and efficiency of their nonverbal communication.

More specifically, nonverbal communication has great functional significance for six major reasons. First, nonverbal, not verbal, factors are the major determinants of meaning in the interpersonal context. Birdwhistell (1970) asserted that “probably no more than 30 to 35 percent of the social meaning of a conversation or an interaction is carried by the words” (p. 158). Mehrabian (1968) went even further, estimating that 93 percent of the impact of a message is nonverbal factors. Although Mehrabian’s estimate has been criticized not only on methodological grounds but also because of the obvious implausibility of the estimate, Birdwhistell’s estimate has been supported by other research. More recently, findings suggest that nonverbal cues represent two-thirds of communication (Brook & Servatka, 2016).

Children, army recruits, and dating couples often find themselves in communication situations that are similar in one respect: they must quickly and accurately determine the meanings of messages being transmitted to them. They typically rely on tone of voice, facial expression, and bodily movement to accomplish this purpose. Children soon learn that the tone and intensity of a parent’s voice are their best guide to action. Army recruits do not determine the priority of directives from their drill sergeant by analyzing the manifest verbal content of those directives. They focus on the sense of physical involvement the sergeant conveys to them nonverbally through the notoriously rough and tough voice. When your boyfriend or girlfriend says no to your most artful advances, you do not stop and apply the semantic differential to the verbal response in order to measure his or her meaning. You rely on facial and bodily expressions as the primary determinants of intent.

Second, feelings and emotions are more accurately revealed by nonverbal than verbal means. Davitz (1969) has conducted an impressively detailed set of studies on emotional expression. He concludes that “it is the nonverbal, of the formal characteristics of one’s environment … that primarily determine the emotional meaning of one’s world” (p. 201). Expressions like “keep your chin up,” “down in the mouth,” and “walking on air” are much more than empty figures of speech. They have emotional referents that are rich in meaning and communicative significance. A recent study confirms Davitz’s findings, but adds a new element. Sternglanz and DePaulo (2004) found that close friends were able to recognize nonverbal expressions of emotion, but had more trouble when it came...