Nonverbal Communication

Nicole C. Krämer

FRAMEWORKS FOR NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR

Human communication can be described as a “multichannel reality” (Poyatos, 1983, p. 175) consisting of language, paralanguage (i.e., vocal aspects, such as intonation), and kinesics (i.e., visual aspects). The latter two are referred to as nonverbal behavior. Kinesics, especially, constitutes a complex system of channels. People know each of these channels from everyday experience: facial expressions, gaze, gestures, postures, and head and body movements (Wallbott, 1994). Other aspects of communication are often classified as nonverbal communication, particularly haptics (the use of touch) and proxemics (the use of space) (see Burgoon, Buller, and Woodall, 1989). Moreover, chronemics (the use of time), physical appearance, and the use of artifacts or olfactory cues are also sometimes mentioned as nonverbal cue systems (Burgoon, Buller, and Woodall, 1989; Wallbott, 1994).

Empirical data show that all of the nonverbal aspects have a strong impact on the process and the results of people’s communicative efforts and play a vital role in person perception processes, such as the process of forming opinions on other people (Argyle, Salter, Nicholson, Williams, and Burgess, 1970; Mehrabian and Wiener, 1967; Schneider, Hastorf, and Ellsworth, 1979). Summarizing findings from different studies, Burgoon (1994) suggests that overall approximately 60-65 percent of social meaning is derived from nonverbal behaviors.

This paper deals with the two most prominent aspects of nonverbal language, paralanguage and kinesics. The rest of this section provides an



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 150
Nonverbal Communication Nicole C. Krämer FRAMEWORKS FOR NONvERBAL BEHAvIOR Human communication can be described as a “multichannel reality” (Poyatos, 1983, p. 175) consisting of language, paralanguage (i.e., vocal aspects, such as intonation), and kinesics (i.e., visual aspects). The latter two are referred to as nonverbal behavior. Kinesics, especially, constitutes a complex system of channels. People know each of these channels from everyday experience: facial expressions, gaze, gestures, postures, and head and body movements (Wallbott, 1994). Other aspects of communication are often classified as nonverbal communication, particularly haptics (the use of touch) and proxemics (the use of space) (see Burgoon, Buller, and Woodall, 1989). Moreover, chronemics (the use of time), physical ap- pearance, and the use of artifacts or olfactory cues are also sometimes mentioned as nonverbal cue systems (Burgoon, Buller, and Woodall, 1989; Wallbott, 1994). Empirical data show that all of the nonverbal aspects have a strong impact on the process and the results of people’s communicative efforts and play a vital role in person perception processes, such as the process of forming opinions on other people (Argyle, Salter, Nicholson, Williams, and Burgess, 1970; Mehrabian and Wiener, 1967; Schneider, Hastorf, and Ellsworth, 1979). Summarizing findings from different studies, Burgoon (1994) suggests that overall approximately 60-65 percent of social meaning is derived from nonverbal behaviors. This paper deals with the two most prominent aspects of nonverbal language, paralanguage and kinesics. The rest of this section provides an 50

OCR for page 150
5 NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION account of the intellectual history and development of the research area and an account of functions, attributes, and cognitive aspects of nonverbal behavior as they are discussed in the relevant literature. The next major sec- tion looks at that literature with a special focus on culture, leadership and effective communication, and the subsequent section considers the methods and technologies used in the research. The last major section considers ap- plications, and the paper ends with a brief conclusion. Intellectual History and Development Nonverbal behavior has received considerable attention by a wide range of disciplines, including biology, anthropology, sociology, and com- munications, as well as social and experimental psychology (see DePaulo and Friedman, 1998; Burgoon et al., 1989). This interdisciplinary nature has helped protect research from the intellectual biases and sterility inherent in isolation (see DePaulo and Friedman, 1998). However, the interdisciplin- ary character of the field may also be responsible for the noticeable change of research foci over the years. For example, during the 1970s turn-taking behaviors were studied extensively. This topic has now seemingly vanished from the agenda of most research groups, while socioemotional effects, for example, are being analyzed in detail. Regardless of specific research foci, however, one development is perva- sive: when the research domain of nonverbal communication in the 1960s and 1970s became increasingly important, the explicit goal was to relate specific signals to specific meanings, such as emotional states or personal- ity traits. Early manuscripts tended to suggest that once the meaning of specific cues was known, one might become able to read another person’s emotions like a book. It should be noted that this belief is still reflected in some nonscientific literature. However, today’s scholars stress the enormous complexity of nonverbal behavior, and no one would seek to unravel the meaning of specific signals. In contrast to language, nonverbal behavior is not believed to refer to an explicit semantic code. Burgoon and Bacue (2003) conclude: “It is important to underscore the polysemous nature of nonverbal behaviors as well as their substitutability. A single nonverbal cue may have multiple meanings, and the same meaning may be conveyed by a number of differ- ent nonverbal cues” (p. 187). Today, in fact, no manner of communication, not even verbal interaction, is still modeled as a one-to-one transmission of meaning from sender to receiver as originally depicted by Shannon and Weaver (1948). In particular, representatives of constructivist assump- tions or general systems theory (Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson, 1967; Maturana, 1978) argue that meaning is not fixed, encoded into a signal, transmitted, and decoded, but, rather, that it is constructed by the receiver

OCR for page 150
52 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS and depends heavily on the receiver’s perception of situation and context. And nonverbal aspects of communication are even less ascribable to a com- mon semantic code than verbal aspects because of several specific character- istics of nonverbal behavior that make the phenomena more complex (and thus also more difficult to study) than language and verbal communication. In this paper these characteristics are distinguished as processual character/ subtle dynamics, context dependency, and production and perception out- side awareness. These current and promising frameworks for understanding nonverbal behavior are described in the rest of this section. Attributes of Nonverbal Behavior It is nowadays commonly assumed that it is not feasible to establish a list that links specific behaviors to their effects or meaning. In contrast to speech, nonverbal behavior does not refer to an explicit semantic code, mainly because nonverbal signals are highly context dependent and in- volve subtle dynamics instead of static, isolated elements (e.g., postures) (Grammer, 1990; Grammer et al., 1999). Nonverbal behavior is thus char- acterized by dimensional as well as processual complexity (see Barker, 1964; Bente and Krämer, 2003). With regard to context dependency, several approaches to classify dif- ferent contexts have been suggested. Bavelas and Chovil (1997; Chovil, 1997) differentiate two forms of contextual information that influence the interpretation of nonverbal cues: cumulative context (topic of conversation, earlier events and behaviors) and simultaneous context (accompanying words, gestures, etc.). Similarly, Krämer (2001) mentions (1) attributes of the sender (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity, physical appearance), (2) situation, (3) verbal context, and (4) nonverbal context as important modulators. Empirical evidence has especially been presented for the latter three of these aspects. Situational context: The so-called Kulechov effect demonstrates that situational context is sometimes more important for the attribution of a movie character’s emotions than his or her facial expressions (Pudowkin, 1961; Wallbott, 1988). In a short movie sequence, the Soviet director Lev Kulechov combined an actor’s neutral face with a dead woman’s body, or a little girl playing, or a pot of soup. Depending on the context, the actor’s neutral face was interpreted as displaying either terror, joy, or contentment (see also the replication of Goldberg, 1951, in a controlled study). Verbal context: Chovil (1991b) showed that information conveyed by facial displays (more specifically, eyebrow movements) is dependent on the verbal context in which they occur: Meaning conveyed by the displays cannot be understood by examining the

OCR for page 150
5 NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION physical properties of the display by themselves but rather by seeing the ac- tions in their verbal and conversational context. It is through examination of the facial displays in their linguistic context that the discourse functions of facial displays are revealed (p. 190). The information provided by eyebrow movements depending on con- text varied from emphasis, marked questions and offers, surprise, or disbe- lief to listener attention. Nonverbal context: As outlined above, nonverbal behavior is com- plex, with multiple behaviors happening simultaneously in various chan- nels. Thus, one of the most important contexts for nonverbal behavior is nonverbal behavior (see Bente and Krämer, 2003). In fact, there are many empirical examples for situations in which an activity in one channel affects those simultaneously occurring in another. For example, Grammer (1990) shows that the function of laughter is modulated by additional signals: “the function of laughter could reach from signaling aversion to signaling sexual enticement depending from the postures and movements which are sent parallel to laughter” (p. 232). More surprisingly, Frey et al. (1983) demonstrated that the evaluation of Mona Lisa’s smile is dependent on the lateral tilt of her head. Besides the modulating effect of different contexts, there seem to be additional aspects affecting the effects of a specific behavior. Interestingly, these aspects seem to lie within the behavior itself: the movement qual- ity and subtle dynamics inherent in every behavior. As early as 1970, Birdwhistell described the importance of the quality of the movements: The salute, a conventionalized movement of the right hand to the vicin- ity of the anterior portion of the cap or hat, could, without occasioning a court material, be performed in a manner which could satisfy, please or enrage the demanding officer. By shifts in stance, facial expression, the ve- locity or duration of the movement of salutation, and even in the selection of inappropriate contexts for the act, the soldier could dignify, ridicule, demean, seduce, insult, or promote the recipient of the salute. By often imperceptible variations in the performance of the act, he could comment upon the bravery or cowardice of his enemy or ally [or] could signal his attitude toward army life (Birdwhistell, 1970, pp. 79-80). Recent studies indicate that the quality of a movement may even have a stronger impact on the observers’ impressions than so-called semantic as- pects, although they might not be identified as a possible cause (Grammer et al., 1999). Physical properties of body and face movements, such as speed, acceleration, dimensional complexity, and symmetry, have been shown to be especially highly significant. For instance, Grammer, Filova, and Fieder (1997) showed that very subtle changes in women’s movements (a full

OCR for page 150
5 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS body turn lasting 3 seconds) could be attributed to whether or not they were interested in a man who was observing those movements. Especially when a specific level of estrogen is reached, a woman in the presence of a man shows movements that are more complex but slower that in other situations. Male observers do not consciously notice these subtle changes, but they nevertheless involuntarily adapt their behavior. These results were generated by means of an innovative video analysis tool that merely as- sessed physical aspects of movement (see below). Krumhuber and Kappas (2005) show that movement quality is equally important when observing facial behavior: the evaluation of a smile as authentic is dependent on the temporal dynamics of the smile. Against this background, Grammer et al. (1997) suggest a new concep- tualization of nonverbal communication that radically differs from current category-oriented “body language” approaches: they postulate discrete and meaningful movement patterns. In parallel to this conceptualization, Gallese and Goldman (1998) posit that perception of nonverbal behavior is mediated by the recently described “mirror neurons” (Gallese, Fadiga, and Rizolatti, 1996; Iacaboni et al., 1999; Rizolatti et al., 1996) that are assumed to be activated not only when one conducts a movement, but also when observing an action—thus allowing to directly sense the sender’s intentions, emotional states, etc. (For first assumptions in this direction, see also the earlier literature on emotion contagion and interactional syn- chrony: Bavelas, Black, Chovil, Lemery, and Mullett, 1988; Bavelas, Black, Lemery, and Mullett, 1986; Hatfield, Cacioppo, and Rapson, 1994). In sum, it can be stated that temporal, i.e., processual, aspects as reflected in the quality of movements play a vital role in nonverbal com- munication. Burgoon et al. (1989) aptly state that “we need to understand nonverbal communication as an ongoing, dynamic process rather than just a static snapshot of cues or final outcomes at one moment of time” (p. 23). Methodological approaches that take these assumptions into account have been proposed by Cappella and Palmer (1990), Frey et al. (1983), and Grammer et al. (1997, 1999). Cognitive Aspects With regard to cognitive aspects of nonverbal behavior, Patterson (1994, 1995, 1996) suggests a parallel process model. He criticizes the cur- rent procedure of separately analyzing social behavior (production aspect of nonverbal communication, encoding) and social cognition (perception aspect, decoding). He argues that both processes should be considered in parallel, given that they always occur simultaneously. The two processes mutually affect each other because they both draw on a finite pool of cogni- tive resources. However, even when it is necessary to spend large portions

OCR for page 150
55 NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION of resources on strategic, controlled behavior, usually both aspects can be processed since person perception might be executed automatically. In fact, Gilbert and Krull (1988) demonstrate that attributions with regard to a job applicant were more accurate when only small resources were available for person perception—thus forcing participants to engage in automatic processing of nonverbal cues: “The present study suggests that under some circumstances (viz., when non-linguistic behavior is more diagnostic than linguistic behavior) cognitively busy perceivers may be relatively immune to correspondence bias, an error of overprocessing” (p. 201). Choi et al. (2005) also suggest that the degree of automatization for both encoding and decoding is fairly high. Consistent with the definition of automaticity by Bargh (1994), nonverbal communication is seen as un- aware, efficient, uncontrollable (i.e., cannot be stopped), and unintentional. Against the background of numerous empirical examples, especially from the realm of encoding and decoding of emotional displays, they conclude: Because of the need to act quickly in social life, much of human behavior has acquired an almost reflexlike nature. This is not to say that we are automatons, completely at the mercy of processes to which we do not have access. Most social tasks are composed of components over which we can exercise a great deal of conscious control. For example, our deci- sions to initiate social goals can be largely conscious, though we may not be consciously aware of all the steps that are set in motion to fulfill these goals (Choi et al., 2005, p. 327). Similarly, Burgoon et al. (2000) assume that unconscious process- ing—or in their terminology, mindlessness—is ubiquitous when communi- cating nonverbally. With regard to the production of nonverbal behavior, they state: “Just as language users routinely create grammatical sentences without being able to articulate the rules of grammar, interactants may be relatively unaware of the specific communication tactics they develop in service of their goals” (p. 109). Grammer et al. (1997, 1999), as part of their analogous communica- tion approach (see above), also stress the importance of automatic process- ing, but they focus on perception. In line with their assumptions on the importance of subtle aspects, such as movement quality, they conceptualize the processing of these aspects is largely automatic—without involving direct and conscious cognitive processing. Also, Frey (1999) proposes so- called inferential communication with regard to the perception of non- verbal behavior. He assumes that all visually perceptible stimuli possess an overwhelming suggestive force. Referring to Helmholtz’s concept of unconscious conclusions, he argues that the effects of visual stimuli are not subject to cognitive control and leave people defenseless, while affecting people both immediately and deeply. In this line of argumentation, Buck et

OCR for page 150
56 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS al. (1992, p. 962) aptly state that nonverbal communication is “conversa- tion between limbic systems.” Functions of Nonverbal Behavior Functions of nonverbal signals are manifold: They help to structure the course of verbal exchange, they complement speech activity, they determine social impressions, and they affect the emotional climate of conversations. Several classifications of functions have been proposed (see Hecht, DeVito, and Guerrero, 1999). Patterson (1990) differentiates (a) provision of infor- mation (on emotional state, personality), (b) regulation of interaction (turn- taking), (c) communication of intimacy, (d) mechanisms of social control (status, persuasion, impression management), (e) presentation of identity, (f) affect management (maximizing of positive and minimizing of negative affect, e.g., using touch), and (g) facilitation of formal situations. Burgoon and Bacue (2003) similarly distinguish (a) expressive communication, (b) conversational management (in terms of the “lubricant that keeps the ma- chinery of conversation well oiled,” p. 192), (c) relational communication (including social support, comforting, and conflict management), and (d) image management and influence processes. In an attempt to unify several approaches, Bente and Krämer (in press) suggested three functional levels of nonverbal behavior: (1) discourse functions (behaviors, like pointing or illustrative gestures, that are closely related to verbal behavior, Efron, 1941; Ekman and Friesen, 1969), (2) dialogue functions (behaviors that serve the smooth flow of interaction when exchanging speaker and listener roles, Duncan, 1972), and (3) socioemotional functions (behaviors that affect person perception, evaluation, and interaction climate). With regard to general functions of nonverbal behavior that pertain to socioemotional aspects, in recent years a controversy emerged. The assump- tion that emotion and expression are directly linked and that emotional states automatically lead to expressions specific for the respective emotion (Izard, 1997; Tomkins, 1962; Ekman, 1997; see Manstead, Fischer, and Jacobs, 1999, for a review) has been challenged. Researchers following the so-called social-communicative view (Chovil, 1991a; Fridlund, 1991a; Russell, 1997) argue that emotional nonverbal behaviors are determined not by emotional states but exclusively by social intentions. Referring to empirical findings and evolutionary psychology, Fridlund (1991a) argues in his “behavioral ecology view” that it is simply dysfunctional to directly show one’s emotional states. Instead, individuals use their emotional dis- plays in a socially reasonable and manipulative way (e.g., not to cry when one is saddest but to cry when assistance is most readily available). In sum, nonverbal behavior (such as facial displays) is seen as motivated by social

OCR for page 150
5 NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION goals and intentions, not by emotion; the behavior is seen as strategic, but still as automatic and unconscious. Empirical evidence confirms that facial displays are more pronounced in social situations (Fridlund et al., 1992; Fridlund, 1991b; Chovil, 1991a; Kraut and Johnston, 1979; Fernandez-Dols, Sanchez, Carrera, and Ruiz- Belda, 1997). In fact, there is ample evidence that the social situation strongly affects nonverbal behavior. It has been demonstrated that people behave differently when others are present than when they are alone: for example, Brightman, Segal, Werther, and Steiner (1977) show that people eating a salty sandwich on their own do not show any reaction, but when they are in the presence of others they strongly display their dislike. Also, the smiling of 18-month-old children depends almost exclusively on the vi- sual attention of the mother (Jones and Raag, 1989). This finding has been taken as evidence for the notion that nonverbal behavior is solely motivated by social goals. In addition, more sophisticated studies demonstrate that the type of audience also has a significant influence. For example, friends elicit different behaviors than do strangers. In an excellent review on the impact of social situations on nonverbal behavior, Wagner and Lee (1999) identify the role of the other person and the relationship of the people as important determinants for the elicitation of nonverbal behavior in social situations. For example, co-action usually leads to facilitation of facial expressions, and being observed leads to less facilitation, or to inhibition. If the people present are friends or acquaintances, facilitation emerges; if the people pres- ent are merely experimenters or observers, inhibition occurs. Overall, most evidence points to the enormous influence of the sociality of a situation on the nonverbal behavior—affirming the notion that nonver- bal behavior serves social goals. In consequence, nonverbal behavior is seen as a vital means to manipulate interlocutors automatically (for a review see Manstead, Fischer, and Jacobs, 1999; Krämer, 2001), for example, in the course of impression management (self-presentation), a phenomenon that today is also modeled as ubiquitous, strategic, automatic, and occur- ring without the individual’s awareness (Leary, 1995). Thus, Wagner et al. (1992) argued in favor of a functional account of nonverbal behavior in line with impression management theories: “People use facial and other nonverbal behavior to communicate. . . . We believe that such an approach puts expressive behavior more firmly into social psychological theory, and renders unnecessary the invocation of the limited concept of cultural display rules” (p.18). In sum, nonverbal behavior and its effects are highly complex, and single cues cannot be translated directly into distinct meaning. Nonverbal behavior is characterized by a high dimensional complexity, which results in the effects of single cues being dependent on the occurrence of other cues, and a high processual complexity, which articulates itself in the importance

OCR for page 150
5 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS of the quality of movements (e.g., in terms of the effects of subtle dynam- ics). Moreover, nonverbal behavior has been shown to be both produced and perceived automatically and outside awareness. Last but not least, nonverbal behavior constitutes an important means of impression manage- ment and serves social goals—also automatically and nonconsciously—by manipulating the social environment. CuRRENT AND PROMISINg RESEARCH This section gives an overview of current findings and promising re- search with regard to specific research fields. It first considers two aspects that exert influence on nonverbal communication: culture and setting with regard to status and dominance (in terms of leadership settings). It then specifies characteristics of effective versus ineffective communication, again drawing on the situations and settings mentioned above. Influence of Culture “I am convinced that much of our difficulty with people in other countries stems from the fact that so little is known about cross-cultural communication” (Hall, 1959, p.10). Unfortunately, this statement is still true today. Although novels or movies frequently highlight misunderstand- ings in cross-cultural communication, academic coverage of the topic is unsatisfactory. If anything can be found in the area of nonverbal commu- nication, findings are mostly anecdotal. Research is scarce and superficially focuses on emblems, proxemics, or facial expressions. Even fewer studies take subtle movement qualities and other subtle cues into account. Here, a first approach by Grammer and colleagues (1999) indicates that there are differences between Japanese and German participants in terms of gaze and speech but none with regard to movement quality. A summary of findings (see below) suggests that there are different layers of behavior, ranging from complete universality to pronounced dis- similarity. While subtle signals with a genuine temporal pattern, like the eyebrow flash (Grammer et al., 1988; Eibl-Eibesfeld, 1972), do not differ across cultures, especially those nonverbal behaviors that are closely tied to language (e.g., the gesture categories emblems and illustrators; Efron, 1941) differ heavily. Referring to LaFrance and Mayo (1978), Burgoon et al. (1989) state: the innermost core represents nonverbal behaviors considered to be univer- sal and innate; facial expressions of some emotional states belong to this core. Next come the nonverbal behaviors that show both uniformity and diversity; members of all cultures display affect, express intimacy, and deal with status but the particular signs of doing so are variable. Finally, there

OCR for page 150
5 NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION are culture-bound nonverbal behaviors which manifest great dissimilarity across cultures—language-related acts such as emblems, illustrators, and regulators show this diversity most clearly (p. 73). Even more surprisingly, there is almost no systematic research on cross- cultural communication. In most cases, differences between cultures are merely described, and any actual problems or misunderstandings have to be inferred. After describing the empirical results below, implications for cross-cultural communication and training will be discussed in the last paragraph of the section. Gestures Since emblems are gestures that have a direct verbal meaning and are closely related to speech (e.g., the peace sign), they are not shared across cultures. In some cases, similar gestures occur but have different meanings—a fact that can easily compromise someone not familiar with cultural specifics. Thus, Richard Nixon met with disapproval when he gave the “A-OK” gesture in Latin America, where it is an obscene gesture (see Burgoon et al., 1989). Other emblems possess contradictory meaning when displayed cross-culturally, for example Bulgarians shaking their heads for “yes” and using an upward the head throw for “no” (Burgoon et al., 1989). Also, illustrative (i.e., speech accompanying) gestures have been shown to vary across cultures (Efron, 1941). Proxemics Hall (1959, 1966) found that the interpersonal distance people use in different kinds of social encounters varies across cultures. He differentiated contact (e.g., Latin American, French, Arab) versus non- contact cultures (e.g., German and American). Burgoon et al. (1989) offer a critique of this approach and argue that context factors (such as gender, experimental setting) should be considered more carefully. Although they also affirmed intercultural differences, Sussman and Rosenfeld (1982) ob- served that when Japanese and Venezuelan communicators spoke English, they adopted distances similar to those of Americans. Facial  expressions The research on the cultural specificity of facial expressions—which, according to Kupperbusch et al. (1999), is the area that is most extensively studied with regard to cultural context—basically started with Darwin’s (1872) book, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. Although he stated that there are “strong biological underpin- nings for (and hence universality in) the communication of intimacy, affili- ation, aggression and so on” (quoted in DePaulo and Friedman, 1998, p. 5), there is also ample evidence that there are cultural differences regarding both production and recognition of facial displays. With regard to the production of facial expressions, only a few studies

OCR for page 150
60 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS have been conducted. The most important conclusion that has been drawn from them is the existence of display rules—culturally learned rules regard- ing the appropriateness of showing certain expressions in certain situa- tions (Ekman and Friesen, 1969). This assumption has been confirmed by Ekman (1972) and Friesen (1972), who presented video clips that elicited disgust to Japanese and American participants. There were no differences when participants thought they were alone, but when interviewed after the presentation, the Japanese participants masked their disgust with smil- ing. In a better controlled version of the same procedure, Matsumoto and Kuppersbusch (2001) showed that participants from collectivist countries (e.g., Japan) tend to conceal both positive and negative emotions when others are present. Moreover, social context factors modulate these results: participants from individualistic countries (e.g., the United States) consider it more appropriate to mask negative emotions when interacting with an out-group (e.g., business partners), while people from collectivistic cultures are more likely to mask negative emotions with an in-group (e.g., family). With regard to recognition of facial expression, most data comparing literate and preliterate cultures support the notion of universality (Ekman, 1972; Ekman and Friesen, 1971; Izard, 1971). However, it should be noted that the method of using photographs of (in most cases) posed (i.e., non- natural) expressions has been heavily criticized (Russell, 1997; Wierzbicka, 1995; for a review, see also Kuppersbusch et al., 1999; Parkinson, Fischer, and Manstead, 2005). In a more sophisticated study, Matsumoto (1992) showed that American subjects were better able to recognize anger, disgust, fear, and sadness than Japanese subjects, but that there was no difference for happiness or surprise. This finding has been interpreted as avoidance of emotions that threaten group harmony: those emotions are neither shown nor recognized. Immediacy Cues that communicate immediacy in Western culture (high expressivity, close proximity, direct facing and eye contact, touch) may be considered overly direct, aggressive, or invasive in other cultures (Burgoon and Bacue, 2003). For example, Indonesians use less direct body orientation than Australians (Noesjirwan, 1978). However, Arabs use more direct body orientation than Americans (Watson and Graves, 1966). In the United States it is expected that a stranger smiles in response to another person’s smile, but this pattern is uncommon in Israel (Alexander and Babad, 1981). Gaze In contrast to many Western cultures, people from Asian and African cultures are taught to avoid eye contact (Burgoon et al., 1989; Byers and Byers, 1972; Bond and Komai, 1976). Hence, direct or frequent gaze may be regarded as rude or a violation of privacy (Burgoon and Bacue,

OCR for page 150
 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS Argyle, M., Salter, V. Nicholson, H., Williams, M., and Burgess, P. (1970). The communica- tion of inferior and superior attitudes by verbal and non-verbal signals. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, , 222-231. Aries, E. (1987). Gender and communication. In P. Shaver and C. Hendrick (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology: Sex and gender (vol. 7, pp. 149-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bailenson, J.N., and Beall, A.C. (2006). Transformed social interaction: Exploring the digital plasticity of avatars. In R. Schroeder and A. Axelsson (Eds.), Avatars at work and play: Collaboration and interaction in shared virtual environments (pp. 1-16). Berlin, Ger- many: Springer-Verlag. Bailenson, J.N., Beall, A.C., Blascovich, J., Loomis, J., and Turk, M. (2005). Transformed so- cial interaction, augmented gaze, and social influence in immersive virtual environments. Human Communication Research, 31, 511-537. Bailenson, J.N., Beall, A.C., Loomis, J., Blascovich, J., and Turk, M. (2004). Transformed social interaction: Decoupling representation from behavior and form in collabora- tive virtual environments. PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 13(4), 428-441. Bailenson, J.N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A.C., and Loomis, J.M. (2001). Equilibrium revisited: Mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments. PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 10, 583-598. Bailenson, J.N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A.C., and Loomis, J.M. (2003). Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1-15. Bargh, J.A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In R.S. Wyer and T.K. Scrull (Eds.), Handbook of social cog- nition: Basic processes (vol. 1, pp. 1-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Barker, R.G. (1964). Observation of behavior: Ecological approaches. Journal of Mount Sinai Hospital, , 268-284. Bavelas, J.B., Black, A., Chovil, N., Lemery, C.R., and Mullett, J. (1988). Form and function in motor mimicry: Topographic evidence that the primary function is communicative. Human Communication Research, (3), 275-299. Bavelas, J.B., Black, A., Lemery, C.R., and Mullett, J. (1986). “I show how you feel”: Mo- tor mimicry as a communicative act. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 322-329. Bavelas, J.B., and Chovil, N. (1997). Faces in dialogue. In J.A. Russell and J.M. Fernández- Dols (Eds.), The psychology of facial expression (pp. 334-348). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Beal, C., Johnson, L., Rabrowski, R., and Wu, S. (2005). Individualized feedback and simula- tion-based practice in the tactical language training system. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2005), July 18-22, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Bente, G. (1984). Grundlagen und Effekte interpersonaler Macht und Einflussnahme im gesprächspsychotherapeutischen Behandlungsprozess. Eine Interaktionsstudie unter be- sonderer Berücksichtigung nonverbaler Kommunikation. Dissertation, Trier, Germany. Bente, G., and Krämer, N.C. (2003). Integrierte Registrierung und Analyse verbaler und nonverbaler Kommunikation. In T. Herrmann and J. Grabowski (Hrsg.), Sprachproduk- tion (Enzyklopädie der Psychologie, Themenbereich C, Serie 3, Band 1, S. 219-246). Göttingen: Hogrefe. Bente, G., and Krämer, N.C. (in press). Virtual gestures. Embodiment and nonverbal behav- ior in computer-mediated communication. In A. Kappas (Ed.), Emotion in the Internet. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

OCR for page 150
 NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION Bente, G., Krämer, N.C., Petersen, A., and de Ruiter, J.P. (2001). Computer-animated move- ment and person perception. Methodological advances in nonverbal behavior research. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 25(3), 151-166. Bente, G., Petersen, A., Krämer, N.C., and de Ruiter, J.P. (2001). Transcript-based computer animation of movement: Evaluating a new tool for nonverbal behavior research. Behav- ior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, (3), 303-310. Berger, C.R. (1985). Social power and interpersonal communication. In M.L. Knapp and G.R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 439-499). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bernieri, F.J., Gilles, J.S., Davis, J.M., and Grahe, J.E. (1996). Dyad rapport and the accuracy of its judgment across situations: A lens model analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, , 110-129. Bernieri, F.J., and Rosenthal, R. (1991). Interpersonal coordination: Behavioral matching and interactional synchrony. In R.S. Feldman and B. Rimé (Eds.), Fundamentals of nonverbal behavior (pp. 401-432). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Birdwhistell, R.L. (1970). Kinesics and context. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Blascovich, J., Loomis, J., Beall, A.C., Swinth, K.R., Hoyt, C.L. and Bailenson, J.N. (2002). Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychological Inquiry, , 103-124. Available: http://www.stanford.edu/group/vhil/pubs. html [accessed March 2006]. Bond, M.H., and Komai, H. (1976). Targets of gazing and eye contact during interviews: Effects on Japanese nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, , 1276-1284. Brightman, V.J., Segal, A.L., Werther, P., and Steiner, J. (1977). Facial expression and hedonic response to taste stimuli. Journal of Dental Research, 56, B-161. Buck, R., Losow, J.I., Murphy, M.M., and Constanzo, P. (1992). Social facilitation and inhi- bition of emotional expression and communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6(6), 962-968. Bucy, E.P. (2000). Emotional and evaluative consequences of inappropriate leader displays. Communication Research, 2(2), 194-226. Burgoon, J.K. (1994). Nonverbal signals. In M.L. Knapp and G.R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 229-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Burgoon, J.K., and Bacue, A.E. (2003). Nonverbal communication skills. In J.O. Greene and B.R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 179- 220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Burgoon, J.K., Berger, C.R., and Waldron, V.R. (2000). Mindfulness and interpersonal com- munication. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 105-127. Burgoon, J.K., Buller, D.B., and Woodall, W.G. (1989). Nonverbal communication: The un- spoken dialogue. New York: Harper and Row. Burgoon, J.K., Dillman, L., and Stern, L. (1993). Adaptation in dyadic interaction: Defining and operationalizing patterns of reciprocity and compensation. Communication Theory, , 295-316. Burgoon, J.K., and Dunbar, N.E. (2000). An interactionist perspective on dominance- submission: Interpersonal dominance as a dynamic, situationally contingent social skill. Communication Monographs, 6(1), 96-121. Burgoon, J.K., and Saine, T.J. (1978). The unspoken dialogue: An introduction to nonverbal communication. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Byers, P., and Byers, H. (1972). Nonverbal communication and the education of children. In C.B. Cazden, V.P. John, and D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 3-31). New York: Teachers College Press.

OCR for page 150
0 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS Cappella, J.N. (1991). Mutual adaptation and relativity of measurement. In B.M. Montgom- ery and S. Duck (Eds.), Studying interpersonal interaction (pp. 103-117). New York: Gifford. Cappella, J.N. (1996). Dynamic coordination of vocal and kinesic behavior in dyadic interac- tion: Methods, problems, and interpersonal outcomes. In J.H. Watt and C.A. VanLear (Eds.), Dynamic patterns in communication processes (pp. 353-386). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cappella, J.N., and Flagg, M.E. (1992). Interactional adaptation, expressiveness and attrac- tion: Kinesic and vocal responsiveness patterns in initial liking. Paper presented at the 6th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Social and Personal Rela- tionships, Orono, ME. Cappella, J.N., and Palmer, M.T. (1990). The structure and organization of verbal and non- verbal behavior: Data for models of production. In H. Giles and W.P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 141-161). Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons. Cappella, J.N., and Planalp, S. (1981). Talk and silence sequences in informal conversations III: Interspeaker influence. Human Communication Research, , 117-123. Carli, L.L., LaFleur, S.J., and Loeber, C.C. (1995). Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6(6), 1030-1041. Cassell, J., Bickmore, T., Billinghurst, M., Campbell, L., Chang, K, Vilhjálmsson, H., and Yan, H. (1999). Embodiment in conversational interfaces: Rea. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: The CHI is the limit (pp. 520-527). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press. Cassell, J., Bickmore, T., Campbell, L., Vilhjálmsson, H., and Yan, H. (2000). Human conver- sation as a system framework: Designing embodied conversational agents. In J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost, and E. Churchill (Eds.), Embodied conversational agents (pp. 29-63). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cassell, J., Steedman, M., Badler, N., Pelachaud, C., Stone, M., Douville, B., Prevost, S., and Achorn, B. (1994). Modeling the interaction between speech and gesture. In A. Ram and K. Eiselt (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixteenth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 153-158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Also available: http:// gn.www.media.mit.edu/groups/gn/publications.html [accessed May 2007]. Chartrand, T.L., and Bargh, J.A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6(6), 893-910. Cherulnik, P.D., Donley, K.A., Wiewel, T.R., and Miller, S.R. (2001). Charisma is contagious: The effect of leaders’ charisma on observers’ affect. Journal of Applied Social Psychol- ogy, (10), 2149-2159. Choi, V.S., Gray, H.M., and Ambady, N. (2005). The glimpsed world: Unintended communica- tion and unintended perception. In R.R. Hassin, J.S. Uleman, and J.A. Bargh (Eds.), The new unconscious (pp. 309-333). New York: Oxford University Press. Chovil, N. (1991a). Social determinants of facial displays. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 5(3), 141-154. Chovil, N. (1991b). Discourse oriented facial displays in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 25, 163-194. Chovil, N. (1997). Facing others: A social communicative perspective on facial displays. In J.A. Rusell and J.M. Fernández-Dols (Eds.), The psychology of facial expression. Stud- ies in emotion and social interaction (2nd series, pp. 321-333). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Collett, P. (1971). On training Englishmen in the non-verbal behavior of Arabs: An experiment in intercultural communication. International Journal of Psychology, 6, 209-215.

OCR for page 150
 NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION Collins, B.E., and Raven, B.H. (1969). Group structure: Attraction, coalitions, communica- tion, and power. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychol- ogy: Group psychology and phenomena of interaction (vol. 4, 2nd ed., pp. 102-204). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Condon, W.S., and Ogston, W.D. (1966). Sound-film analysis of normal and pathological behavior patterns. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, , 338-347. Craig, S.D., Gholson, B., and Driscoll, D. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, , 428-434. Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. London, England: J. Murray. DePaulo, B.M., Blank, A.L., Swain, G.W., and Hairfield, J.G. (1992). Expressiveness and expressive control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, , 276-285. DePaulo, B.M., and Friedman, H.S. (1998). Nonverbal communication. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 3-40). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. DiMatteo, M.R., Hays, R.D., and Prince, L.M. (1986). Relationship of physicians’ nonverbal communication skill to patient satisfaction, appointment non-compliance, and physician workload. Health Psychology, 5, 581-594. Donaghy, W.C. (1989). Nonverbal communication measurement. In P. Emmert and L. Barker (Eds.), Measurement of communication behavior (pp. 296-332). White Plains, NY: Longman. Dovidio, J.F., Ellyson, S.L., Keating, C.F., Heltman, K., and Brown, C.E. (1988). The relation- ship of social power to visual displays of dominance between men and women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 233-242. Driskell, J.E., Olmstead, B., and Salas, E. (1993). Task cues, dominance cues, and influence in task groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, , 51-60. Driskell, J.E., and Salas, E. (2005). The effect of content and demeanor on reactions to domi- nance behavior. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, (1), 3-14. Dunbar, N.E., and Burgoon, J.K. (2005a). Measuring nonverbal dominance. In V. Manusov (Ed.), The sourcebook of nonverbal measures: Going beyond words (pp. 361-374). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dunbar, N.E., and Burgoon, J.K. (2005b). Perceptions of power and interactional domi- nance in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(2), 207-233. Duncan, S., Jr. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(2), 283-292. Edinger, J.A., and Patterson, M.L. (1983). Nonverbal involvement and social control. Psycho- logical Bulletin, (1), 30-56. Efron, D. (1941). Gesture and environment. New York: King’s Crown Press. Eibl-Eibesfeld, I. (1972). Similarities and differences between cultures in expressive move- ments. In R.A. Hinde (Ed.), Non-verbal communication. Cambridge, England: Cam- bridge University Press. Ekman, P. (1972). Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion. In J. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (vol. 19). Lincoln: University of Ne- braska Press. Ekman, P. (1997). Expression or communication about emotion. In N.L. Segal and G.E. Weisfeld (Eds.), Uniting psychology and biology: Integrative perspectives on human development (pp. 315-338). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ekman, P., and Friesen, W.V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage and coding. Semiotica, , 49-98.

OCR for page 150
2 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS Ekman, P., and Friesen, W.V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, , 124-129. Exline, R.V. (1972). Visual interaction: The glances of power and preference. In J. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (vol. 19, pp. 163-206). Lincoln: University of Ne- braska Press. Exline, R.V., Ellyson, S.L., and Long, B. (1975). Visual behavior as an aspect of power role relationships. In P. Pliner, L. Krames, and T. Alloway (Eds.), Nonverbal communication of aggression (pp. 21-52). New York: Plenum. Feldman, R.S., Phillipot, P., and Custrini, R.J. (1991). Social competence and nonverbal be- havior. In R.S. Feldman and B. Rime (Eds.), Fundamentals of nonverbal behavior (pp. 329-350). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Fernández-Dols, J.-M., Sanchez, F., Carrera, P., and Ruiz-Belda, M.-A. (1997). Are sponta- neous expressions and emotions linked? An experimental test of coherence. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 2(3), 163-177. Fleishman, E.A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Personnel Psychology, , 1-6. Freedman, N. (1972). The analysis of movement behavior during the clinical interview. In A.W. Siegman and B. Pobe (Eds.), Studies in dynamic communication (pp. 153-175). New York: Pergamon. French, J.P.R., and Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research. Frey, S. (1999). Die Macht des Bildes. Bern, Germany: Huber. Frey, S., Hirsbrunner, H.-P., Florin, A., Daw, W., and Crawford, R. (1983). A unified approach to the investigation of nonverbal and verbal behavior in communication research. In W. Doise and S. Moscovici (Eds.), Current issues in European social psychology (S. 143- 199). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Fridlund, A.J. (1991a). Evolution and facial action in reflex, social motive, and paralanguage. Biological Psychology, 2(1), 3-100. Fridlund, A.J. (1991b). Sociality of solitary smiling: Potentiation by an implicit audience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 229-240. Fridlund, A.J., Kenworthy, K.G., and Jaffey, A.K. (1992). Audience effects in affective imag- ery: Replication and extension to affective imagery. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6, 191-212. Friedman, H.S., Prince, L.M., Riggio, R.E., and DiMatteo, M. (1980). Understanding and assessing nonverbal expressiveness: The affective communication test. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 39, 333-351. Friesen, W.V. (1972). Cultural differences in facial expressions in a social situation: An experi- mental test of the concept of display rules. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Francisco. Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., and Rizolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, (2), 593-609. Gallese, V., and Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind- reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 493-501. Garrat, G.A., Baxter, J.C., and Rozelle, R.M. (1981). Training university police in black- American nonverbal behavior. An application in police-community relations. Journal of Social Psychology, , 217-229. Gilbert, D.T., and Krull, D.S. (1988). Seeing less and knowing more: The benefits of perceptual ignorance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(2), 193-202.

OCR for page 150
 NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION Giles, H. (1980). Accommodation theory: Some new directions. In M.W.S. Silva (Ed.), Aspects of linguistic behavior: Festschrift Robert Le Page (pp. 105-136). New York: Papers in Linguistics. Giles, H., Mulac, A., Bradac, J.J., and Johnson, P. (1987). Speech accommodation theory: The first decade and beyond. In M.L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook (vol. 10, pp. 13-48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gitter, A.G., Black, H., and Fishman, J.E. (1975). Effect of race, sex, nonverbal communi- cation and verbal communication on perception of leadership. Sociology and Social Research, 60(1), 46-57. Gitter, A.G., Black, H., and Goldman, A. (1975). Role of nonverbal communication in the perception of leadership. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 0(2), 463-466. Gitter, A.G., Black, H., and Walkley, J. (1976). Nonverbal communication and the judgment of leadership. Psychological Reports, (3, Pt 2), 1117-1118. Goldberg, H.D. (1951). The role of “cutting” in the perception of motion pictures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 70-71. Grammer, K. (1990). Strangers meet. Laughter and nonverbal signs of interest in opposite-sex encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, , 209-236. Grammer, K., Filova, V., and Fieder, M. (1997). The communication paradox and a possible solution: Toward a radical empiricism. In A. Schmitt, K. Atzwanger, K. Grammer, and K. Schäfer (Eds.), New aspects of human ethology (pp. 91-120). New York: Plenum. Grammer, K., Honda, M., Jütte, A., and Schmitt, A. (1999). Fuzziness of nonverbal courtship communication unblurred by motion energy detection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (3), 487-508. Grammer, K., Kruck, K.B., and Magnusson, M.S. (1998). The courtship dance: Patterns of nonverbal synchronization in opposite-sex encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22(1), 2-29. Grammer, K., Schiefenhövel, W., Schleidt, M., Lorenz, B., and Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1988). Patterns on the face: The eyebrow flash in crosscultural comparison. Ethology, (4), 279-299. Gratch, J., Rickel, J., Andre, E., Badler, N., Cassell, J., and Petajan, E. (2002). Creating inter- active virtual humans: Some assembly required. IEEE Intelligent Systems, (4), 54-63. Also available: http://people.ict.usc.edu/~gratch/pubs.html [accessed March 2006]. Hall, E.T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Hall, E.T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Hall, J.A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hall, J.A., and Halberstadt, A.G. (1986). Smiling and gazing. In J.S. Hyde and M.C. Linn (Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 136-158). Balti- more, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J., and Rapson, R.L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York: Cam- bridge University Press. Hecht, M.L., DeVito, J.A., and Guerrero, L.K. (1999). Perspectives on nonverbal communi- cation. Codes, functions, and contexts. In L.K. Guerrero, J.A. DeVito, and M.L. Hecht (Eds.), The nonverbal communication reader: Classic and contemporary readings (pp. 3-18). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Henley, N. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hess, U., Philippot, P., and Blairy, S. (1999). Mimicry: Facts and fiction. In P. Phillipot, R.S. Feldman, and E.J. Coats (Eds.), The social context of nonverbal behavior (pp. 213-241). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

OCR for page 150
 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS Hoyt, C.L., Blascovich, J., and Swinth, K.L. (2003). Social inhibition in immersive virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 2(2), 183-195. Iacaboni, M., Woods, R.P., Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Maziotta, J.C., and Rizolatti, G. (1999). Cortical mechanisms of human imitation. Science, 26, 2526-2528. Isbister, K. (2004). Building bridges through the unspoken. In R. Trappl and S. Payr (Eds.), Agent culture: Designing virtual characters for a multi-cultural world (pp. 233-344). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Isbister, K., Nakanishi, H., Ishida, T., and Nass, C. (2000). Helper agent: Designing an assis- tant for human-human interaction in a virtual meeting space. CHI Letters, 2(1), 57-64. Izard, C.E. (1971). The face of emotion. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Izard, C.E. (1997). Emotions and facial expressions: A perspective from differential emo- tions theory. In J.A. Russell and J.M. Fernández-Dols (Eds.), The psychology of facial expression: Studies in emotion and social interaction (pp. 57-77). New York: Cambridge University Press. Jones, S.S., and Raag, T. (1989). Smile production in older infants. The importance of a social recipient for the facial signal. Child Development, 60, 811-818. Kalma, A.P., Visser, L., and Peeters, A. (1993). Sociable and aggressive dominance: Personality differences in leadership style? Leadership Quarterly, (1), 45-64. Keating, C.F. (1985). Human dominance signals: The primate in us. In S. Ellyson and J.F. Dovidio (Eds.), Power, dominance and nonverbal behavior (pp. 89-108). New York: Springer-Verlag. Keating, C.F., and Bai, D. (1986). Children’s attributions of social dominance from facial cues. Child Development, 5, 1269-1276. Keating, C.F., Mazur, A., and Segall, M.H. (1977). Facial gestures which influence the percep- tion of status. Social Psychology Quarterly, 0(4), 374-378. Kendon, A. (1970). Movement coordination in social interaction: Some examples described. Acta Psychologica, 2, 101-125. Kendon, A. (1973). The role of visible behavior in the organization of social interaction. In M. von Cranach and I. Vine (Eds.), Social communication and movement (pp. 29-74). London, England: John Wiley and Sons. Krämer, N.C. (1997). Soziale Beeinflussungsmuster in “Affekt-Talk”-Sendungen. Eine Inhalts- analyse verbaler und nonverbaler Kommunikationsstrukturen. Diploma thesis, University of Cologne. Krämer, N.C. (2001). Bewegende Bewegung. Sozio-emotionale Wirkungen nonverbalen Ver- haltens und deren experimentelle Untersuchung mittels Computeranimation. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst. Krämer, N.C. (2005). Social communicative effects of a virtual program guide. In T. Panayiotopoulos, J. Gratch, R. Aylett, D. Ballin, P. Olivier, and T. Rist (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth international working conference: Intelligent virtual agents (pp. 442-543). Hamburg, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Krämer, N.C. (in press). Soziale Wirkungen von virtuellen Helfern. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Krämer, N.C., and Bente, G. (2007). Communication with human-like machines. Submitted for publication. Computers in Human Behavior. Krämer, N.C., Bente, G., and Piesk, J. (2003). The ghost in the machine. The influence of embodied conversational agents on user expectations and user behavior in a TV/VCR application. In G. Bieber and T. Kirste (Eds.), Proceedings of the international workshop on mobile computing IMC workshop: Assistance, mobility, applications (pp. 121-128). Darmstadt, Germany: Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics.

OCR for page 150
5 NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION Krämer, N.C., Tietz, B., and Bente, G. (2003). Effects of embodied interface agents and their gestural activity. In R. Aylett, D. Ballin, T. Rist, and J. Rickel (Eds.), th international working conference on intelligent virtual agents (pp. 292-300). Hamburg, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Kraut, R.E., and Johnston, R.E. (1979). Social and emotional messages of smiling: An etho- logical approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (9), 1539-1553. Krumhuber, E., and Kappas, A. (2005). Moving smiles: The role of dynamic components for the perception of the genuineness of smiles. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 2(1), 3-24. Kupperbusch, C., Matsumoto, D., Kooken, K., Loewinger, S., Uchida, H., Wilson-Cohn, C., and Yrizarry, N. (1999). Cultural influences on nonverbal expressions of emotion. In P. Phillipot, R.S. Feldman, and E.J. Coats (Eds.), The social context of nonverbal behavior (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. LaFrance, M. (1982). Posture mirroring and rapport. In M. Davis (Ed.), Interaction rhythms: Periodicity in communicative behavior (pp. 279-298). New York: Human Sciences Press. LaFrance, M., and Hecht, M.A. (1999). Option or obligation to smile: The effects of power and gender on facial expression. In P. Phillipot, R.S. Feldman, and E.J. Coats (Eds.), The social context of nonverbal behavior (pp. 45-70). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. LaFrance, M., and Mayo, C. (1978). Cultural aspects of nonverbal communication. Interna- tional Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 71-89. Leary, M.R. (1995). Self-presentation. Impression management and interpersonal behavior. Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark. Lester, J.C., Towns, S.G., Callaway, C.B., Voerman, J.L., and FitzGerald, P.J. (2000). Deictic and emotive communication in animated pedagogical agents. In J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost, and E. Churchill (Eds.), Embodied conversational agents (pp. 123-154). Boston, MA: MIT Press. Lewis, R.J., Derlega, V.J., Shankar, A., Cochard, E., and Finkel, L. (1997). Nonverbal cor- relates of confederates’ touch: Confounds in touch research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2(3), 821-830. Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill Lipps, T. (1907). Das Wissen von fremden Ichen. In T. Lipps (Hrsg.), Psychologische Unter- suchungen,  (S. 694-722). Leipzig: Engelmann. Manstead, A.S.R., Fischer, A., and Jacobs, E.B. (1999). The social and emotional functions of facial displays. In P. Phillipot, R.S. Feldman, and E.J. Coats (Eds.), The social context of nonverbal behavior (pp. 287-316). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Manusov, V. (1995). Reacting to changes in nonverbal behaviors: Relational satisfaction and adaptation patterns in romantic dyads. Human Communication Research, 2(4), 456-477. Manusov, V. (1999). Stereotypes and nonverbal cues. Showing how we feel about others dur- ing cross-cultural interactions. In L.K. Guerrero, J.A. DeVito, and M.L. Hecht (Eds.), The nonverbal communication reader: Classic and contemporary readings (pp. 388-394). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Masters, R.D., and Sullivan, D.G. (1993). Nonverbal behavior and leadership: Emotion and cognition in political information processing. In S. Iyengar and W.J. McGuire (Eds.), Ex- plorations in political psychology (pp. 150-182). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Matsumoto, D. (1992). American-Japanese cultural differences in the recognition of universal facial expressions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2, 72-84.

OCR for page 150
6 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS Matsumoto, D., and Kuppersbusch, C. (2001). Idiocentric and allocentric differences in emo- tional expression, experience, and the coherence between expression and experience. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, , 113-131. Maturana, H.R. (1978). Biology of language: The epistemology of reality. In G.A. Miller and E. Lenneberg (Eds.), Psychology and biology of language and thought: Essays in honor of Eric Lenneberg (pp. 27-63). New York: Academic. Mehrabian, A. (1969a). Significance of posture and position in the communication of attitude and status relationships. Psychological Bulletin, (5), 359-372. Mehrabian, A. (1969b). Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavior Re- search Methods, Instruments and Computers, (6), 203-207. Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Mehrabian, A., and Wiener, M. (1967). Decoding of inconsistent communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 109-114. Mehrabian, A., and Williams, M. (1969). Nonverbal concomitants of perceived and intended persuasiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (1), 37-58. Michael, G., and Willis, F.N., Jr. (1969). The development of gestures in three subcultural groups. Journal of Social Psychology, , 35-41. Monge, P.R., and Kalman, M.E. (1996). Sequentiality, simultaneity and synchronicity in hu- man communication. In J.H. Watt and C.A. VanLear (Eds.), Dynamic patterns in com- munication processes (pp. 71-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Moreno, R. (2001). Software agents in multimedia: An experimental study of their contribu- tions to students’ learning. In Human-computer interaction proceedings (pp. 275-277). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Moreno, R., Mayer, R.E., Spires, H., and Lester, J. (2001). The case for social agency in com- puter-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, , 177-213. Narayanan, S., Ananthakrishnan, S., Belvin, R., Ettaile, E., Ganjavi, S., Georgiou, P., Hein, C., Kadambe, S., Knight, K., Marcu, D., Neely, H., Srinivasamurthy, N., Traum, D., and Wang, D. (2003). Transonics: A speech to speech system for English-Persian interactions. In Proceedings of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IEEE automatic speech recognition and understanding. U.S. Virgin Islands, Dec. Available: http://www. ict.usc.edu/publications/asru2003_08_07.pdf [accessed May 2007]. Nass, C., and Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81-103. Noesjirwan, J. (1978). A laboratory study of proxemic patterns of Indonesians and Austra- lians. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, , 333-334. Parkinson, B., Fischer, A.H., and Manstead, A.S.R. (2005). Emotions in social relations: Cul- tural, group, and interpersonal processes. New York: Psychology Press. Patterson, M.L. (1990). Functions of nonverbal behavior in social interaction. In H. Giles and W.P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 101-120). Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons. Patterson, M.L. (1994). Interaction behavior and person perception: An integrative approach. Small Group Research, 25(2), 172-188. Patterson, M.L. (1995). Invited article: A parallel process model of nonverbal communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, (1), 3-29. Patterson, M.L. (1996). Social behavior and social cognition: A parallel process approach. In J.L. Nye and A.M. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? (pp. 87-105). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Patterson, M.L., Powell, J.L., and Lenihan, M.G. (1986). Touch, compliance and interpersonal effect. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 0, 41-50.

OCR for page 150
 NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION Pelachaud, C., Badler, N.I., and Steedman, M. (1996). Generating facial expressions for speech. Cognitive Science, 20(1), 1-46. Poyatos, F. (1983). Language and nonverbal systems in the structure of face-to-face interac- tion. Language and Communication, (2), 129-140. Pudowkin, W.I. (1961). Über die Filmtechnik. Zürich, Switzerland: Arche. Remland, M. (1982). The implicit ad hominem fallacy: Nonverbal displays of status in argu- mentative discourse. Journal of the American Forensics Association, , 79-86. Rickel, J., and Johnson, W.L. (2000). Task oriented collaboration with embodied agents in virtual worlds. In J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost, and E. Churchill (Eds.), Embodied conversational agents (pp. 95-122). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rickel, J., Marsella, S., Gratch, J., Hill, R., Traum, D., and Swartout, W. (2002). Toward a new generation of virtual humans for interactive experiences. IEEE Intelligent Systems (Special Issue on AI in Interactive Entertainment), (4), 32-38. Rickenberg, R., and Reeves, B. (2000). The effects of animated characters on anxiety, task performance, and evaluations of user interfaces. Paper presented at the CHI 2000 Con- ference on Human factors in Computing Systems, April 1-6, The Hague, Netherlands. Letters of CHI 2000, 49-56. Riggio, R.E. (1987). The charisma quotient. New York: Dodd, Mead. Riggio, R.E. (2005). Business applications of nonverbal communication. In R.E. Riggio and R.S. Feldman (Eds.), Applications of nonverbal communication (pp. 119-138). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rizolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Matelli, M., Bettinardi, V., Paulesu, E., Perani, D., and Fazio, F. (1996). Localization of grasp representations in humans by PET1. Experimental Brain Research, , 246-252. Rollins, B.C., and Bahr, S.J. (1976). A theory of power relationships in marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, , 619-627. Rosenthal, R., Hall, J.A., DiMatteo, M.R., Rogers, P.L., and Archer, D. (1979). Sensitivity to nonverbal communication: The PONS test. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Russell, J.A. (1997). Reading emotions from and into faces: Resurrecting a dimensional- contextual perspective. In J.A. Russell and J.M. Fernández-Dols (Eds.), The psychology of facial expression (pp. 295-320). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Scheflen, A.E. (1964). The significance of posture in communication systems. Psychiatry, 2, 316-321. Schilbach, L., Wohlschlaeger, A., Krämer, N.C., Newen, A., Zilles, K., Shah, J.N., Fink, G.R., and Vogeley, K. (2006). Being with virtual others: Neural correlates of social interaction. Neuropsychologia, , 718-730. Schneider, D.J., Hastorff, A.H., and Ellsworth, P.C. (1979). Person perception. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Schouwstra, S.J., and Hoogstraten, J. (1995). Head position and spinal position as determi- nants of perceived emotional state. Perceptual and Motor Skills, (2), 673-674. Segrin, C. (1999). The influence of nonverbal behaviors in compliance-gaining processes. In L.K. Guerrero, J.A. DeVito, and M.L. Hecht (Eds.), The nonverbal communica- tion reader: Classic and contemporary readings (pp. 335-346). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Shannon, C., and Weaver, W. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Sonka, M., Hlavac, V., and Boyle, R. (1993). Image processing. Analysis and machine vision. London, England: Chapman and Hall. Sproull, L., Subramani, M., Kiesler, S., Walker, J.H., and Waters, K. (1996). When the interface is a face. Human Computer Interaction, (2), 97-124.

OCR for page 150
 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS Strongman, K.T., and Chapness, B.G. (1968). Dominance hierarchies and conflict in eye con- tact. Acta Psychologica, 2, 376-386. Sussman, N.M., and Rosenfeld, H.M. (1982). Influence of culture, language, and sex on con- versational distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 66-74. Swartout, W., Hill, R., Gratch, J., Johnson, W.L., Kyriakakis, C., LaBore, C., Lindheim, R., Marsella, S., Miraglia, D., Moore, B., Morie, M., Rickel, J., Thifiebaux, M., Tuch, L., Whitney, R., and Douglas, J. (2001). Toward the holodeck: Integrating graphics, sound, character and story. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on autonomous agents (pp. 409-416). New York: ACM Press. Takeuchi, A., and Naito, T. (1995). Situated facial displays: Towards social interaction. In I. Katz, R. Mack, L. Marks, M.B. Rosson, and J. Nielsen (Eds.), Human factors in comput- ing Systems: CHI’5 conference proceedings (pp. 450-455). New York: ACM Press. Thayer, S. (1969). The effect of interpersonal looking duration on dominance judgments. The Journal of Social Psychology, , 285-286. Tickle-Degnen, L., and Rosenthal, R. (1987). Group rapport and nonverbal behavior. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, , 113-136. Tomkins, S.S. (1962). Affect, imagery, consciousness: The positive affects (vol. 1). New York: Springer. Traum, D., Swartout, W., Gratch, J., Marsella, S., Kenny, P., Hovy, E., Narayanan, S., Fast, E., Martinovski, B., Baghat, R., Robinson, S., Marshall, A., Wang, D., Gandhe, S., and Leuski, A. (2005). Dealing with doctors: A virtual human for non-team interaction. Lisbon, Portugal: Special Interest Group for Digital Linguistics. Uhl-Bien, M. (2004). Relationship development as a key ingredient for leadership develop- ment. In S.E. Murphy and R.E. Riggio (Eds.), The future of leadership development (pp. 129-147). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Van Baaren, R.B., Holland, R.W., Kawakami, K., and van Knippenberg, A. (2004). Mimicry and pro-social behavior. Psychological Science, 15, 71-74. Wagner, H., and Lee, V. (1999). Facial behavior alone and in the presence of others. In P. Phillipot, R.S. Feldman, and E.J. Coats (Eds.), The social context of nonverbal behavior (pp. 262-287). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Wagner, H.L., Lewis, H., Ramsay, S., and Krediet, I. (1992). Prediction of facial displays from knowledge of norms of emotional expressiveness. Motivation and Emotion, 6, 347-362. Wallbott, H.G. (1988). In and out of context: Influences of facial expression and context infor- mation on emotion attributions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2(4), 357-369. Wallbott, H.G. (1994). Verhaltensbeobachtung. In R.D. Stieglitz and U. Baumann (Hrsg.), Psy- chodiagnostik psychischer Störungen (Serie: Klinische Psychologie und Psychopathologie, Bd.60, S. 95-106). Enke, Germany: Stuttgart. Wallbott, H.G. (1995). Congruence, contagion, and motor mimicry: Mutualities in nonverbal exchange. In J. Markova, C.F. Graumann, and K. Foppa (Eds.), Mutalities in dialogue (pp. 82-98). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Watson, O.M., and Graves, T.D. (1966). Quantitative research in proxemic behavior. Ameri- can Anthropologist, 6, 971-985. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H., and Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York: Norton. Weber, M. (1946). The sociology of charismatic authority. In H.H. Girth and C.W. Mills (Eds. and Translators), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 245-252). New York: Oxford University Press. (Original work published in 1921). Wierzbicka, A. (1995). Emotion and facial expression: A semantic perspective. Culture and Psychology, , 227-258. Zajonc, R.B., Murphy, S.T., and Inglehart, M. (1989). Feeling and facial efference: Implication of the vascular theory of emotion. Psychological Review, 6, 395-416.