Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Nonverbal Communication Nicole C. KrÃ¤mer FRAMEWORKS FOR NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR Human communication can be described as a âmultichannel realityâ (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 peopleâs 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 150
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 151 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 personâs emotions like a book. It should be noted that this belief is still reflected in some nonscientific literature. However, todayâs 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: âIt 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 cuesâ (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
152 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS and depends heavily on the receiverâs 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 KrÃ¤mer, 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, KrÃ¤mer (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 characterâs emotions than his or her facial expressions (Pudowkin, 1961; Wallbott, 1988). In a short movie sequence, the Soviet director Lev Kulechov combined an actorâs neutral face with a dead womanâs body, or a little girl playing, or a pot of soup. Depending on the context, the actorâs 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
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 153 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 KrÃ¤mer, 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: âthe function of laughter could reach from signaling aversion to signaling sexual enticement depending from the postures and movements which are sent parallel to laughterâ (p. 232). More surprisingly, Frey et al. (1983) demonstrated that the evaluation of Mona Lisaâs 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 observersâ 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 womenâs movements (a full
154 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 âbody languageâ 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 âmirror neuronsâ (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 actionâthus allowing to directly sense the senderâs 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 âwe 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 timeâ (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
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 155 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 perceptionâthus forcing participants to engage in automatic processing of nonverbal cues: âThe 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 overprocessingâ (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- ingâor in their terminology, mindlessnessâis ubiquitous when communi- cating nonverbally. With regard to the production of nonverbal behavior, they state: âJust 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 goalsâ (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 automaticâwithout 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 Helmholtzâs 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
156 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS al. (1992, p. 962) aptly state that nonverbal communication is âconversa- tion between limbic systems.â 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 âlubricant that keeps the ma- chinery of conversation well oiled,â 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 KrÃ¤mer (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 âbehavioral ecology viewâ that it is simply dysfunctional to directly show oneâs 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
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 157 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 behaviorâaffirming 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; KrÃ¤mer, 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 individualâs awareness (Leary, 1995). Thus, Wagner et al. (1992) argued in favor of a functional account of nonverbal behavior in line with impression management theories: âPeople 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 rulesâ (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
158 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 goalsâalso automatically and nonconsciouslyâby 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 âI am convinced that much of our difficulty with people in other countries stems from the fact that so little is known about cross-cultural communicationâ (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
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 159 are culture-bound nonverbal behaviors which manifest great dissimilarity across culturesâlanguage-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. Gesturesâ 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 meaningsâa fact that can easily compromise someone not familiar with cultural specifics. Thus, Richard Nixon met with disapproval when he gave the âA-OKâ 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 âyesâ and using an upward the head throw for ânoâ (Burgoon et al., 1989). Also, illustrative (i.e., speech accompanying) gestures have been shown to vary across cultures (Efron, 1941). Proxemicsâ 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 expressionsâ The research on the cultural specificity of facial expressionsâwhich, according to Kupperbusch et al. (1999), is the area that is most extensively studied with regard to cultural contextâbasically started with Darwinâs (1872) book, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. Although he stated that there are âstrong biological underpin- nings for (and hence universality in) the communication of intimacy, affili- ation, aggression and so onâ (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
160 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS have been conducted. The most important conclusion that has been drawn from them is the existence of display rulesâculturally 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. Immediacyâ 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 personâs smile, but this pattern is uncommon in Israel (Alexander and Babad, 1981). Gazeâ 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,
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 161 2003). Arabs, on the other hand, engage in more eye contact than Ameri- cans (Watson and Graves, 1966). Intercultural Communication and Resolving Conflictâ Although al- most no research in cross-cultural settings has been conducted, it can be inferred from the results summarized above that the use of culturally spe- cific behaviors might confuse, irritate, or even provoke an interlocutor with a different cultural background. Understanding of what actually happens when people from different cultures meet (e.g., whether there is automatic adaptation on subtle layers of nonverbal behavior) is incomplete. It is also not yet known whether there are also differences with regard to movement quality or other subtle aspects of behavior (as discussed above). On this topic, research is just beginning (Grammer et al., 1999). Manusov (1999) has already demonstrated that stereotypes and expec- tations about how people from a different culture will behave affect what people see and how they themselves behave during conversations. If, for example, people have a positive attitude (which may or may not be deter- mined by a stereotype), they show more direct body orientation and more gazeâespecially during the first 5 minutes of an interaction. But Manusov (1999) also shows that if stereotypes are violated, people are influenced by how other people actually behave. In order to resolve conflict and intercultural misunderstandings, Burgoon et al. (2000)âagainst the background that conflict is characterized by rela- tively mindless cycles of blamingâsuggest mindfulness: âCompetent conflict management tactics appear to be those that increase the mindfulness of conflict behavior by bringing unstated assumptions under scrutiny, more clearly articulating the positions of self and otherâ (p. 119). With regard to cross-cultural interactions, however, Burgoon et al. (2000) also express reservations about what is often seen as the ideal way to resolve conflict: to find common ground. This is seen as potentially dangerous in intercultural interactions, because it may distract partners from existing differences: âThis presumption of communality in fact may be an unrecognized contributor to many intercultural communication difficultiesâ (p. 119). Yet knowledge about and salience of differences alone is probably not sufficient. Also, as Burgoon et al. (1989) state, simple exposure to another culture does not guarantee more accurate nonverbal communication (see Michael and Willis, 1969, for early results). Burgoon et al. (1989) suggest instead that training in the production of culture-specific cues is necessary. The usefulness of such training has been demonstrated by Collett (1971), who trained Britons to behave nonverbally like Arabs. As a result, those Britons were rated more favorably than untrained British communicators (see also Garrat, Baxter, and Rozelle, 1981, who trained white policemen to communicate more effectively with Afro-Americans). Yet such training
162 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS concepts clearly rely on both the knowledge given and the possibility to consciously choose and produce adequate signals. This approach may well be possible for emblems, as these are researched well, relatively easy to learn, and might be produced consciously. However, with regard to more subtle and often automatic signals, such as head movement activity, this approach will be less useful (for alternative approaches, see below). Nonverbal Communication in Leadership Settings Although it is frequently stated that the analysis of nonverbal behavior is of great importance when studying leadership (Gitter, Black, and Gold- man, 1975; Gitter, Black, and Walkley, 1976; Gitter, Black, and Fishman, 1975), there has been surprisingly little research directly examining non- verbal communication processes (Anderson and Bowman, 1999; Riggio, 2005). Uhl-Bien (2004), for example, suggests that a leaderâs nonverbal communication skills are crucial for building effective leader-member rela- tionships. Berger (1985) even suggests: . . . nonverbal behaviors are more significant in determining the experience of power than are variables related to verbal content. One conclusion to be drawn here is that failure to take into account nonverbal behavior in the study of communication and power relationships is to doom oneself to study the tip of a very large iceberg (p. 483). The most prominent concept in leadership settings that is closely tied to nonverbal communication is that of charismatic leadership: the specific behavior of a leader is seen as a crucial variable (Friedman, Prince, Riggio, and DiMatteo, 1980). Patterns of nonverbal behavior that convey a sense of a leaderâs enthusiasm and confidence are emphasized as particularly important (Riggio, 1987). According to Cherulnik, Donley, Wiewel, and Miller (2001), charismatic behavior is characterized by nonverbal expres- siveness and immediacy. As already posited by Weber (1921/1946), this is efficient because a charismatic leader elicits emotional arousal in followers. The phenomenon of emotional contagion is thus seen as a possible media- tor for how the nonverbal expressiveness of a leader positively affects the followers. This view holds that the observation of a leaderâs facial displays leads to the automatic mimicry of facial movements and subsequentlyâdue to the interlinkage of facial muscles and brain regions associated with emo- tions (see facial feedback theory, Zajonc, Murphy, and Inglehart, 1989)âto the corresponding feelings in followers. It has been demonstrated empirically that people do indeed react with corresponding emotions to televised emotional expressions of political leaders (Masters and Sullivan, 1993). However, in line with the assump- tions discussed above, the interrelationship of a leaderâs nonverbal behav-
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 163 ior, a viewerâs emotions, and lasting attitudes is extraordinarily complex: Masters and Sullivan (1993) identify at least 16 different variables that seem to moderate followersâ reactions to watching a political leader. Also, Cherulnik, Donley, Wiewel, and Miller (2001) have shown that charisma is contagious: in one laboratory study using televised presidential debates, they showed that at least the nonverbal behavior is contagiousâbut only if the leader exhibits truly charismatic behavior. Another approach that is used to explain leadership behavior is the model of the bases of social power by French and Raven (1959). Collins and Raven (1969) state that social influence and power might be based on (1) reward (resulting from the ability to provide positive reinforcement), (2) coercive power (reflecting the potential to exert punishment), (3) referent power (based on the relationship of influencer and influencee in terms of respect and esteem), (4) legitimate power (based on authority recognized in accordance with position in an organizational structure), (5) expert power (form of referent power resulting from recognized expertise), or (6) infor- mational power (variation of legitimate power resulting from the ability to control the availability of information). Leaders thus might refer to different power bases and influence fol- lowers either by rapport (referent power), power (legitimate power), or incentives (reward/coercive power). In order to work in everyday interac- tions, these power bases necessarily have to be accompanied by adequate nonverbal behavior. However, little is known about the nonverbal cor- relates of these types of social power. Bente (1984) demonstrated that coercive and expert powers are accompanied by increased general head movement activity, while referent power is characterized by a head move- ment activity that is less than average. In contrast, KrÃ¤mer (1997) showed that coercive behavior is accompanied by decreased sagittal head (up and down) movements, while sagittal movement is increased when referent power is exerted. With regard to influence and persuasion and their connection to non- verbal communication, there is also less research than one would expect. A meta-analysis of 50 studies indicates that gaze, touch (i.e., light touch on a personâs upper arm or shoulder), moderately close distances, and profes- sional clothing are associated with successful compliance (e.g., with regard to signing a petition, loaning money, etc.) (Segrin, 1999). More surprisingly, there is evidence that verbal compliance techniques to achieve compliance are no more effective than nonverbal. Apart from these approaches there is a large body of research not di- rectly connected to leadership but to the concept of dominance. Burgoon and Bacue (2003, p. 200) argue that âNonverbal behavior is a major avenue for communicating power, dominance, and status in everyday interactions
164 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS and may even form a universally recognized vocabulary by which a given social community interprets and expresses privilege and control.â According to Dunbar and Burgoon (2005b) and Burgoon and Bacue (2003), dominance can be conceptualized as the behavioral manifestation of the relational construct of powerâthe latter being defined as the capability to produce intended effects. Unlike Rollins and Bahr (1976), who originally argued for a linear relationship between dominance and power, Dunbar and Burgoon (2005b) assume a curvilinear relationship: partners who perceive their power as extremely high or low will use fewer control attempts and dominance behaviors than partners who perceive their partner as of similar power as themselves. Furthermore, Burgoon and Dunbar (2000) model interpersonal domi- nance as a dynamic, situationally contingent social skill. They empirically verify the notion that there are strong commonalities between the com- munication style of socially skilled people and interpersonal dominance by demonstrating that people with greater self-reported social skills are perceived as more dominant. People who are both socially skilled and dominant are better than less skilled and dominant people at expressing themselves verbally and nonverbally, at controlling their presentations to foster a favorable impression, and at conveying confidence, friendliness, and dynamism. This relationship is seen as resulting from the fact that, in Western culture, dominance is evaluated positively: âPreference is given to the dominant rather than the submissive end of the behavioral continuumâ (Burgoon and Dunbar, 2000, p. 116). Other work also supports the assumption that dominance displays are adapted to communicative circumstances and thus supports the view of in- terpersonal dominance as a situationally and relationally contingent social skill. In contrast, however, work by Driskell and Salas (2005) and others (Carli, LaFleur, and Loeber, 1995; Driskell, Olmstead, and Salas, 1993) suggests that dominance behavior is a generally ineffective influence tactic in groups and leads to negative evaluations from others, such as incompe- tence, resentment, and dislike. The approach of Kalma, Visser, and Peeters (1993) might provide a possibility to integrate the different results: they distinguish sociable dominance (characterized by positive social relation- ships) and aggressive dominance (low on socioemotional leadership) and give evidence that these two groups differ with regard to nonverbal behav- ior. Socially dominant people look more directly at the person speaking, use more gesticulation (which according to Freedman , represents a strong communicative intention), and show prolonged gaze pattern during turn takingâthus indicating more directly from whom they expect a reac- tion. In leadership contexts, sociably dominant people using these kinds of immediacy signals thus seem to possess the capacity to influence followers by referent power and building rapport. Thus, they can be expected to be
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 165 successful relationship-oriented leaders (see Michigan studies that differ- entiate relationship-oriented and task-oriented styles, Likert, 1961), and successful with âconsiderationâ instead of âinitiating structureâ style (see Ohio state studies, Fleishman, 1953). In general, there has been extensive research on which nonverbal cues signal dominance, which is summarized briefly below: for comprehensive overviews, see Anderson and Bowman (1999), Burgoon, Buller, and Woodall (1989), Dunbar and Burgoon (2005b), and KrÃ¤mer (2001). According to Burgoon et al. (1989), the literature is organized by channel/codeâinclud- ing face, kinesics, proxemics and haptics, and gazeâbecause most of the research has targeted one or two isolated behaviors and their correlation with status, dominance, or dominant personality traits. Faceâ It has been found that the absence of a smile and lowered brows, in terms of a stern, angry face, convey dominance (Bucy, 2000; Edinger and Patterson, 1983; Henley, 1977; Keating, 1985; Keating, Mazur, and Segall, 1977; Mehrabian and Williams, 1969). It is still controversial, though, whether smiling is actually related to submissiveness (pro: Burgoon and Bacue, 2003; Edinger and Patterson, 1983; Henley, 1977; Keating, 1985; Keating and Bai, 1986; Keating, Mazur and Segall, 1977; contra: Aries, 1987; Carli et al., 1995; Hall, 1984; Hall and Halberstadt, 1986; see also LaFrance and Hecht, 1999). Kinesicsâ The kinesic cues that have been shown to communicate domi- nance are the so-called relaxation cues, e.g., a backward or sideward lean, relaxed hands, asymmetry of arms (Mehrabian, 1969a, 1969b, 1972). However, most of the cues have not been verified in other studies (Agui- nis, Simonsen, and Pierce, 1998; Carli et al., 1995). Other cues that have been identified to be related to dominance are physical activity, frequent and expansive gestures, and dynamic expressive displays (Henley, 1977; Mehrabian, 1969b; Mehrabian and Williams, 1969; Remland, 1982). Proxemics and Hapticsâ According to Burgoon and Bacue (2003), proxemics and haptics work in tandem: both convey dominance when per- sonal space is invaded and when these signals are unreciprocated (Remland, 1982). Thus, power and control are communicated through the initiation of touch (Burgoon and Saine, 1978; Henley, 1977; Patterson, Powell, and Lenihan, 1986), and more dominant people claim larger territories as others keep a distance from them (Meharbian, 1969b). Gazeâ Results with regard to gaze are ambiguous: some studies suggest that dominant people look more (Thayer, 1969; Strongman and Chapness, 1968), and other studies demonstrate that submissive people gaze more at
166 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS dominant people (Exline, 1972). The different results have been integrated in a model that takes accounts of the importance of speaker role: dominant people show a higher looking-while-speaking to looking-while-listening ra- tio (Dovidio, Ellyson, Keating, Heltman, and Brown, 1988; Exline, Ellyson and Long, 1975). Dominant people thus âcan stare more but have to look lessâ (DePaulo and Friedman, 1998, p. 12). In a study of a military organi- zation, Exline et al. (1975) found that cadets who paid visual attention to low-status persons were rated low in status. They concluded that âone is not obligated to look at lower-status persons and may actually lose status by doing soâ (p. 323). Although research has thus identified various cues that indicate domi- nance, Dunbar and Burgoon (2005b) aptly advise to be cautious and not infer the effects on a perceiver just from one cue: âdominance is a multi- faceted construct that can be demonstrated interactively in many ways and whose meaning depends on the context and the perceiverâ (p. 228). One of the most important weaknesses of all the research, however, is its ethnocentricity: most studies have been conducted in the United States and Europe. To the extent that the studied behavior patterns are not universal, the results may not be found in other cultures. In sum, it can be stated that there are some results on cues that dem- onstrate dominance, but the current knowledge does not allow for the pro- posal of rules for optimal behavior. And given that subtle dynamics might play an important role, it can even be questioned whether such ârulesâ would be useful at all. Nevertheless, most approaches (charismatic leader- ship, Burgoonâs work on dominance, results on persuasion) suggest that expressive and immediate nonverbal behavior is the most effectiveâat least when practicing relationship-oriented leadership. Also vital in this context might certainly be leadersâ abilities to adequately interpret the nonverbal cues of their followers. The general result that sensitivity to nonverbal cues can determine social success is described in the next section, on effective communication. Effective and Ineffective Communication If any results on effective nonverbal communication are soundly based, they are largely centered on social skills and rapport. Gesturing and ex- pressivity have been demonstrated to be the most significant predictors of rapport and social skills (Bernieri et al., 1996; see Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005b). Bernieri et al. (1996, p. 124) conclude: What is expressive is good. People who gesture and talk a lot are judged to be gregarious, dominant, not lazy, motivated, and socially skilled. . . . People who smile and are talkative are warm and not quarrelsome. It is
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 167 not any wonder that expressivity has been considered synonymous with charisma. In the literature, the result is pervasive: expressive people are success- ful communicators and they are reliably more extraverted, dominant, im- pulsive, playful, and popular (Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005b; DePaulo and Friedman, 1998). Expressivity leads not only to increased attribution of attractiveness (DePaulo, Blank, Swain and Hairfield, 1992), but also reli- ably affects every interaction: Expressiveness instantly makes a difference in setting the tone of social interactions. Studies of commonplace interpersonal behaviors such as walking into a room and initiating a conversation (. . . or greeting some- one who is approaching. . .) suggest that this social skill is immediately influential (DePaulo and Friedman, 1998, p. 13). Moreover, Feldman, Phillipot, and Custrini (1991), in a review on social competence and nonverbal behavior, show that not only these en- coding but also decoding skills can be viewed as a manifestation of social competence. According to various results, sensitivity to nonverbal cues can determine social success: teachers, therapists, and foreign service officers who score higher with regard to decoding ability are more talented at their jobs (Rosenthal et al., 1979). Doctors who are good at reading body cues have even been shown to have more satisfied patients (DiMatteo, Hays, and Prince, 1986). Thus, in sum: Research indicates that individuals who exhibit nonverbal skills . . . tend to have more academic and occupational success, larger and more effective social networks . . ., more satisfying marriages, and decreased levels of stress, anxiety and hypertension (Burgoon and Bacue, 2003, p. 208). Another research realm closely related to effectiveness of communi- cation and its behavioral correlates is that of interactional synchrony or mimicry. Various terms are in use: reciprocity and compensation (Argyle and Cook, 1976), mirroring (Bernieri and Rosenthal, 1991), conversa- tional adaptation (Burgoon, Dillman, and Stern, 1993), simulation pattern- ing (Cappella, 1991), synchrony (Condon and Ogston, 1966), congruence (Scheflen, 1964; Kendon, 1973), motor mimicry (Bavelas, Black, Chovil, Lemery, and Mullett, 1988; Bavelas, Black, Lemery, and Mullett, 1986; Lipps, 1907), and accommodation (Giles, 1980; Giles, Mulac, Bradac, and Johnson, 1987; for a review, see Manusov, 1995; Wallbott, 1995). Wallbott (1995) gives a comprehensive definition of the phenomenon: âthe tendency to exhibit such nonverbal (and verbal) behaviors that re- semble those of our interaction partners, when we evaluate them positively or when we want to be evaluated positively by themâ (p. 93). This defini-
168 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS tion already includes the notion that interactional synchrony is associated with rapport or positive evaluations of the interaction partner. Drawing on Tickle-Degnen and Rosenthal (1987), who theoretically linked interpersonal coordination, attentiveness, and positivity to rapport, Bernieri and Rosen- thal (1991) show that people coordinate their behavior to a greater degree when interacting with others whom they like. Also, interactional synchrony has been found to be an important predictor of self-reports of rapport (see also Bernieri, Gilles, Davis, and Grahe, 1996; Hess, Philippot, and Blairy, 1999; LaFrance, 1982; Scheflen, 1964). Moreover, in recent approaches that conceptualize mimicry in line with social cognition assumptions of automaticity as nonconscious, passive, and unintentional (Chartrand and Bargh, 1999; Van Baaren, Holland, Kawakami, and van Knippenberg, 2004), it was demonstrated that mimicry facilitates the smoothness of inter- actions, increases liking between interaction partners, and fosters prosocial behavior. Kendon (1970), as well as Condon and Ogston (1966), however, did not show that synchrony is associated with positive evaluation, but is rather due to similarities in attitudes and mimicking of superior persons. But a word of caution is in order: studies using more sophisticated or innovative methods indicate that it is worthwhile to analyze the phenom- enon closely (i.e., considering subtle aspects of nonverbal behavior and their precise timing). Using time-series analysis, Cappella and Planalp (1981) demonstrated that reciprocal influence exists with regard to matching but also with regard to compensation. Grammer, Kruck, and Magnusson (1998), by means of a sophisticated search algorithm (see below), showed that synchronization in gender-heterogeneous dyads does not necessarily have to be directly observable but shows in rhythmic patterns. âHighly complex patterns of behavior with a constant time structureâ (p. 3) are idiosyncratic for the dyad and indicate interest for the partner. Conclusion: What Isnât Known? When looking at the findings cited above, it can be said that a satis- fying amount of knowledge is availableâat least with regard to cultural differences concerning flamboyant cues, nonverbal correlates of dominance and the immediacy cues necessary to build rapport. Yet it is apparent that detailed knowledge is lacking, for example, with regard to the exact cues and movements that indicate dominance or expressivity. Actually, most research on cultural and social influence, as well as on leadership and ef- fectiveness, has not yet taken into account that nonverbal communication largely relies on subtle, dynamic patterns and specific movement quality (see above). Instead, research has focused on single cuesâsuch as posture, smiling, and proxemicsâthat are assessed easily while ignoring their dy- namic, temporal attributes. Especially with regard to the research targeting
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 169 behavioral correlates of effective communication, it has become clear that merely considering the exact pattern of mutual influence might unravel the antecedents and consequences of interactional synchrony and mimicry. Moreover, the different research domains have rarely been connected to each other or across cultures. Neither nonverbal communication in the context of leadership nor behavioral characteristics of effectiveness have been studied in cultures outside North America and Europe. The results can thus hardly be generalized to humankind. For example, there are no data on appropriate leadership and dominance behavior for Asia or Middle Eastâ let alone with regard to subtle dynamics. In consequence, it is unknown whether charismatic behavior would be efficient when communicating cross-culturally. Indeed, the fact that immediacy behaviors in some cultures are experienced as inappropriately direct (see above) suggests that at least some cultures would be repelled by charismatic behavior. Also, leadership and efficiency of behavior haveâexcept for the area of charismatic behav- iorârarely been connected. For example, the characteristics needed to lead efficient negotiations (possibly cross-culturally) have not been studied with regard to single cues, not to mention subtle movement qualities. RESEARCH METHODS AND TECHNOLOGIES Given the complex nature of nonverbal communication, one has to carefully select the research methods capable of capturing all relevant as- pects. When planning to study the structure of nonverbal communication (e.g., of two people interacting), it is essential to take time into account (see below). When trying to unravel the effects of nonverbal cues, one should keep in mind that these effects depend heavily on context and that nonver- bal behavior is often produced and perceived automatically and without the individualâs awareness (see below). Assessment of Nonverbal Behavior and Subtle Dynamics Being aware of the complexity of nonverbal communication, Monge and Kalman (1996) stress the importance of methods that take into account that nonverbal behavior is a process that develops over time: âHuman communication is a dynamic, unfolding process. . . . The passing of time is so integral to communication, a facet of living experience always so ready at hand, that it tends to escape scrutiny in its own right as a dimension of analysisâ (p. 71). Cappella and Palmer (1990) point out that specific rela- tions with regard to the dynamic interaction of two conversation partners (as discussed above) might be detected only when measuring on a timeline: â. . . in order to understand when covariation is truly simultaneous, rather than simply occurring in the same interaction, one needs to have temporal
170 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS dataâ (p. 144). Nevertheless, most studies have relied on distributional instead of temporal data (see Cappella and Palmer, 1990). One of the few instruments for measuring human movements in a highly detailed manner over time is the Bernese System for time-series nota- tion (Frey et al., 1983; for an overview, see Donaghy, 1989). Using a video recorder, a human coder annotates the position of every part of the body at predefined intervals (most commonly every 0.5 seconds). Now, automatic tools like motion capturing devices can also be used for assessing behavior. It has been shown that the subsequent analysis yields meaningful results that are similar to those gained by the Bernese System (Altorfer, Jossen, and WÃ¼rmle, 1997). In order to focus on the assessment of behavioral dynamics, Grammer, Filova, and Fieder (1997) developed an automatic videoanalysis tool called Automatic Movie Analysis. By image differencing (Sonka, Hlavac, and Boyle, 1993), the successive images of a video are com- pared in order to identify the amount of movement. Thus, motion energy (i.e., the intensity of movements) is assessed. For the analysis of the resulting data, multivariate time-series proce- dures have been proposed. Cappella (1996) highlights the benefits of these methods: Time series procedures can unravel signal from noise and detect and quantify the relationship between the partnersâ behaviors. Without such procedures, it would be almost impossible to know about the presence, type, and magnitude of adaptation behaviors (p. 382; see also Cappella and Flagg, 1992; Monge and Kalman, 1996). Grammer, Kruck, and Magnusson (1998) propose the pattern detection software THEME that identifies complex significant patterns within the behavior, given that the temporal process has been assessed adequately. Avatars and Agents as Tools With regard to studying not the structural aspects of nonverbal behav- ior but the interpersonal effects of specific cues, other problems arise. An experimental approach would be the preferred choice but employing con- federates or actors who vary particular aspects of their nonverbal behav- ior is problematic, because most nonverbal behaviors are not consciously controllable. For example, Lewis, Derlega, Shankar, Cochard, and Finkel (1997) showed that the experimental variation of touch behavior was confounded by simultaneous variations in other nonverbal channels. They concluded that: in spite of specific instructions to keep nonverbal behavior consistent, confederates in the touch versus no touch condition displayed different behaviors. Confederates who touched used more nervous gestures and
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 171 fewer expressive hand gestures compared to those who did not touch (Lewis et al., 1997, p. 821). Other investigators have tried to solve such problems by using photos, drawings, or puppets that could be controlled more easily and precisely than actors (Frey et al., 1983; Schouwstra and Hoogstraten, 1995). Despite some seemingly encouraging results, all these studies have been restricted to the investigation of static and easily manipulated features of nonverbal behavior, such as postures or positions of specific body parts. Currently, it would appear that the only possible way to study the effects of dynamic behavior lies in the use of human-like virtual persons, such as agents and avatars, whose behavior can be controlled systematically (Bente, KrÃ¤mer, Petersen, and de Ruiter, 2001; Blascovich et al., 2002). The rest of this section presents current approaches and their prerequisites. Current Approaches Three approaches to advance knowledge in the realm of nonverbal communication are described here: (1) the use of protocol-based, computer- animated virtual figures to conduct systematically controlled experimental research; (2) a computer simulation approach that exploits the implemen- tation of current knowledge for basic research on gestures; and (3) the use of avatars to manipulate real social interactions in the âtransformed social interactionâ approach. In the first approach, the movements of humans (that have either been coded by means of the Bernese System or recorded by motion capture de- vices) are transferred to computer animated virtual figures (Bente, KrÃ¤mer, Petersen, and de Ruiter, 2001; Bente, Petersen, KrÃ¤mer, and de Ruiter, 2001). The transcript can then be systematically varied with regard to every aspect of posture or movement quality. Subsequently, the animated figures can be presented in an experimental setting. The results are promising. In two studies, head movement activity was manipulated by a speed-up algorithm. The results showed a significant effect of the increased head movement activity on observersâ impressions, but also showed that effects are context- dependent: in casual interactions, increased activity is rated as positive; in interactions that involve interpersonal conflicts, increased movements are evaluated more negatively (KrÃ¤mer, 2001). In a later study it turned out that similar changes in gesture activityâeven when more pronouncedâdid not change observersâ impression to the same degree (KrÃ¤mer, Tietz, and Bente, 2003). Similarly, in order to test for the factors decisive for the perception of genuineness of smiles, Krumhuber and Kappas (2005) produced virtual smiles that differed with regard to their dynamic attributes. In classical approaches of computer simulation, a top-down approach,
172 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS rules of nonverbal communication are implemented, and it is tested whether virtual agents in consequence show natural behavior (Cassell et al., 1994, 1999). In this approach, in order to be able to produce nonverbal com- munication, one has to know relevant rules. Cassell et al. (1994) succeeded in implementing aspects of the gesture-speech relationship and thus praise the methodological benefits of this approach: âThe advantage of computer modeling in this domain is that it forces us to come up with predictive theories of the gesture-speech relationshipâ (p. 1). They conclude: Most research on gesture has been descriptive and distributional. With the evidence available, it is time to attempt predictive theories of gesture use. . . . Formal models such as ours point up gaps in knowledge, and fuzziness in theoretical explanations (Cassell et al., 1994, p. 10). In a similar way, Pelachaud, Badler, and Steedman (1996) model the integration of speech-accompanying facial displays (e.g., eyebrow move- ments), paralanguage, and lip synchronization. Their summary of the ben- efits also indicates that a combination of first and second approaches is conceivable: Our model can be expected to help further research of human communi- cative faculties via automatically synthesized animation. In particular, it offers to linguists and cognitive scientists a tool to analyze, manipulate, and integrate several different determinants of communication. Because our program allows the user to switch each determinant on and off, the function and the information that each of them provides can be analyzed (p. 34). In the third approach, Blascovich et al. (2002) propose immersive virtual environment technology (IVET) as an innovative paradigm within experimental social psychology. The use of virtual figures in immersive en- vironments is seen as an opportunity to increase both experimental control and mundane realism. Summarizing the benefits, they state: Investigators can take apart the very fabric of social interaction using IVET, disabling or altering the operation of its components thereby reverse engineering social interaction. With this approach, social psychologists could systematically determine the critical aspects of successful and unsuc- cessful social interaction, at least within specified domains and interaction tasks (p. 47). Most of the research of the group has been conducted with avatars, that is, virtual figures that transmit the nonverbal behavior of a human in- teraction partner. Using so-called transformed social interaction, Bailenson, Beall, Blascovich, Loomis, and Turk (2005) demonstrated that experimen- tally augmented gaze leads to increased social influence (see also Bailenson
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 173 and Beall, 2006; Bailenson, Beall, Loomis, Blascovich, and Turk, 2004). Experiments analyzing the factors that affect proxemic behavior have also been conducted with avatars (Bailenson, Blascovich, Beall, and Loomis, 2001, 2003). Prerequisites for Using Agents and Avatars The most important prerequisite for using virtual persons for basic re- search on the effects of nonverbal behavior is that they evoke impressions and attributions that are similar to those of real humans. Especially with regard to the perception of the human observers, there should be minimal or preferably no discrepancies between live and virtual stimuli. Indeed, Bente, KrÃ¤mer, Petersen, and de Ruiter (2001) have shown that virtual figures are liable to the same person perception processes as videotaped humans: when the movements of the latter are transferred to virtual figures and presented without speech, person perception ratings do not differ from those of the original humans. Moreover, virtual persons who show social facial expressions, such as smiling or eyebrow raising, lead to an activation of the same brain regions as those triggered by human-human interac- tion, while meaningless facial movements did not result in their activation (Schilbach et al., 2006). While both results can merely be generalized to person perception when being in an observer role (see Patterson, 1994, pleading that social interaction consists of both person perception and behavior production simultaneously), other studies show that virtual figures also evoke human- like responses when an interaction between human and virtual entities takes place. An increasing number of studies gives evidence that (in part) autonomously acting embodied conversational agents (see Cassell et al., 2000; Gratch et al., 2002; Moreno, Mayer, Spires, and Lester, 2001) evoke social effects that are similar to those induced by human-human interaction (KrÃ¤mer, 2005; KrÃ¤mer, in press; KrÃ¤mer and Bente, 2007; Nass and Moon, 2000). Agents have been observed to increase attentiveness (Takeuchi and Naito, 1995), invite intuitive interaction (KrÃ¤mer, 2005), evoke impres- sion management and socially desirable behavior (Sproull et al., 1996; KrÃ¤mer, Bente, and Piesk, 2003), and foster social facilitation or inhibition (Rickenberg and Reeves, 2000; but see also Hoyt, Blascovich, and Swinth, 2003). In this vein, Bailenson et al. (2001) summarize the results of one of their studies: âParticipants in our study clearly did not treat our agent as mere animationâ (p. 595). In general, it can therefore be concluded that virtual figures induce social effects as well as real people do and evoke similar feelings and expe- riencesâregardless of whether they are observed or whether one interacts
174 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS with them. Hence, they can be assumed to be important and useful tools for studying human social behavior within innovative research approaches. Barriers to Advancing Scientific Progress As depicted in the first section of this paper, nonverbal communica- tion is extremely complex; thus its own attributes complicate research. Yet there are adequate methods to study subtle dynamics, movement qualities, interaction patterns, and effects of cues and patterns. The most important barrier to scientific progress thus seems to be that those methods are not used by all research groups analyzing nonverbal communication. In some cases, this lack of use may be due to the fact that many of them, especially tools for the assessment and analysis of detailed temporal data, are ex- tremely laborious and complex. However, the lack of exchanges between different research groups might also be a cause. In fact, there are almost no exchanges across interdisciplinary boundaries: for example, scholars from biology and psychology (mostly focusing on emotional communication), from communications and, most recently, from computer science rarely compare methods and findings. Another barrier to progress might be that this research realm still lacks approval from other scientific areas and disciplines. ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ It should be apparent that nonverbal communication is very complex and requires sophisticated scientific methodology, but it may still be suffering from a reputation based ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ on pseudoscientific literature and early simplistic assumptions of public opinion. APPLICATIONS: GAPS BETWEEN SCIENCE AND IMPLEMENTATION Probably the most important application area for findings with regard to nonverbal communication is the training of nonverbal decoding and en- coding skills. Especially the ability to establish rapport is of great interest for many professions, as Bernieri and Rosenthal (1991) stress: Interpersonal coordination and synchrony may eventually explain how it is that we can âhit it offâ immediately with some people and never âget it togetherâ with others. This aspect of rapport certainly would be of con- cern to professions dealing with intimate personal relations. The success of psychotherapists, physicians, counselors, and teachers all depend to some extend on the degree of rapport they can achieve in their professional interactions (p. 429). Clearly, one of the reasons for the gap between science and applica- tion is that all the complex phenomena still have not been analyzed and
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 175 understood sufficiently. But other factors also play a role. With regard to decoding abilities, studies indicate that training is, in principle, feasible: Feldman, Philippot, and Crustrini (1991) trained children by providing them with feedback on how they were doing while decoding happiness, sad- ness, and fear from photographs. Indeed, children who had been provided with feedback proved to be more successful (but merely with regard to the recognition of fear) than a control group. However, this does not verify the authorsâ claim that social competence is increased. Since only photos had been presented, the results can hardly be generalized to the nonconscious decoding of subtle movement quality. Another aspect of this work is also questionable: given the assumptions of Patterson (1994), a realistic training situation should always comprise not only decoding, but also production of behavior since in real-life encounters both processes mutually affect each other. Similar problems arise with regard to the training of encoding aspects, i.e., production on nonverbal behavior. As discussed above, at least with regard to emblems and other demonstrative cues, successful trainings (e.g., with regard to cross-cultural communication) have been conducted. Work aspects that can be learned and produced consciously (âdo not back away when the Arabic interlocutor stands nearer than you would choose him toâ) are considered, but every behavior that might not be produced consciously is excluded from the training. From what is known, several requirements for training that takes into account the specific qualities of nonverbal communication are clear: â¢ realistic setting that requires both decoding and encoding; â¢ immediate feedback (preferably by nonverbal rewarding and coer- cive signals by the training partner); and â¢ feedback that is given not only with regard to demonstrative cues, but also with regard to the appropriateness of subtle aspects, such as movement quality. A promising possibility to achieve such training might be the use of virtual environments and virtual training partners (for similar suggestions, see Isbister, 2004). In such a setting, different interaction settings can be provided, a traineeâs movements can be analyzed with regard to their ap- propriateness, and immediate feedback might be provided by subtle reac- tions of the virtual interaction partner. Thus, success or failure would not be explained and learned consciously but trained more subtly. As described above, this approach at least meets the prerequisite that human inter- locutors evoke similar reactions as real humans do. First developments in this direction are presented in the âmission rehearsal exerciseâ (Swartout et al., 2001; Rickel et al., 2002) and other applications (Beal, Johnson,
176 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS Rabrowski, and Wu, 2005). Especially with regard to the training of subtle aspects of nonverbal behavior, though, there is still a long way to go. Future applications with virtual agents might be useful in overcoming the pitfalls of, for example, cross-cultural communication in a more direct sense. Once more detailed knowledge on the effects of behavior patterns in different cultures is available, agents might serve as digital mediators and translators of nonverbal cues in Internet-based interactions (see the similar approach of Isbister, Nakanishi, Ishida, and Nass, 2000)âtransmitting a senderâs nonverbal behavior in a version that is more appropriate for a perceiverâs cultural background. While this scenario is already feasible for translation of verbal aspects (see Narayanan et al., 2003), research on the implementation of culture-specific behavior of agents is merely beginning (Traum et al., 2005). Another field of application for findings on nonverbal communica- tion are embodied conversational agents for human-computer interaction or pedagogical agents (Cassell et al., 2000; Moreno, Mayer, Spires, and Lester, 2001). In this approach, the implementation of adequate nonverbal behavior might contribute to facilitating human-computer interaction. In particular, pedagogical agents are expected to raise a learnerâs motiva- tion due to the use of nonverbal behavior (Lester et al., 2000; Rickel and Johnson, 2000). Although Moreno (2001; Moreno, Mayer, Spires, and Lester, 2001)âat least with regard to specific applicationsâshows that the voice might be more important than nonverbal cues (see also Craig, Gholson, and Driscoll, 2002), nonverbal cues can still be assumed to be largely influential (KrÃ¤mer, in press). Thus, advances in the area of nonverbal communication might directly serve the advancement of efficient human-computer interfaces. Moreover, embodied agents can in themselves be a valuable research tool with regard to basic research on nonverbal communication (as discussed above). In order to be able to eventually realize the applications discussed here, more basic research on the structure and effects of nonverbal communica- tion in specific settings has to be conducted. Below, several examples for major research questions are given that are feasible to study by means of the methods discussed in the previous section: â¢ Are there cultural differences with regard to subtle dynamics and movement quality? â¢ What exactly happens in cross-cultural communication? Is behav- ior automatically varied or adapted on any level (e.g., with regard to movement quality)?
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 177 â¢ What exactly constitutes expressiveness, given that it is an impor- tant aspect of efficient communication and supports relationship- oriented leadership? By which means can it be trained? â¢ Is expressive behavior evaluated positively across cultures? â¢ What nonverbal behavior patterns are most efficient in different leadership situations, especially with regard to task-oriented leader- ship, which is under-researched in comparison with relationship- oriented leadership? CONCLUSION Recent research has demonstrated that nonverbal communication is a complex phenomenon that is characterized by context dependency, the importance of movement quality, and subtle dynamics, as well as auto- maticity, that is, a production and perception largely outside awareness. However, most research on factors that influence nonverbal communication (e.g., culture, social situation, leadership setting) has not yet taken these aspects into account; rather it has focused on superficial aspects and single cues. Moreover, the different research domains have not been sufficiently connected, thus leaving unanswered the question of whether the effects of specific cues and patterns identified in Western culture will also be found in other cultures. Given that the availability of appropriate methods for analyzing both the structure of communication (with time-series notation and analysis) and the effects of cues and movement qualities (using com- puter-animated figures such as agents and avatars), further advances can be expected. However, the most important prerequisite for efficient research will be to pool the expertise of different disciplinesâespecially with regard to the potential synergies of innovative methods. References Aguinis, H., Simonsen, M.M., and Pierce, C.A. (1998). Effects of nonverbal behavior on per- ceptions of power bases. Journal of Social Psychology, 138(4), 455-469. Alexander, I.E., and Babad, E.Y. (1981). Returning the smile of the stranger: Within culture and cross-cultural comparisons of Israeli and American children. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 103, 31-77. Altorfer, A., Jossen, S., and WÃ¼rmle, O. (1997). Eine Methode zur zeitgenauen Aufnahme und Analyse des Bewegungsverhaltens. Zeitschrift fÃ¼r Psychologie, 205(1), 83-117. Anderson, P.A., and Bowman, L.L. (1999). Positions of power: Nonverbal influence in orga- nizational communication. In L.K. Guerrero, J.A. DeVito, and M.L. Hecht (Eds.), The nonverbal communication reader: Classic and contemporary readings (pp. 317-334). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Argyle, M., and Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
178 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, 9, 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, 31, 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, 14(3), 275-299. Bavelas, J.B., Black, A., Lemery, C.R., and Mullett, J. (1986). âI show how you feelâ: 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. FernÃ¡ndez- 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 gesprÃ¤chspsychotherapeutischen Behandlungsprozess. Eine Interaktionsstudie unter be- sonderer BerÃ¼cksichtigung nonverbaler Kommunikation. Dissertation, Trier, Germany. Bente, G., and KrÃ¤mer, N.C. (2003). ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Integrierte Registrierung und Analyse verbaler und nonverbaler Kommunikation. ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Sprachproduk- In T. Herrmann and J. Grabowski (Hrsg.), tion (EnzyklopÃ¤die der Psychologie, Themenbereich C, Serie 3, Band 1, S. 219-246). GÃ¶ttingen: Hogrefe. Bente, G., and KrÃ¤mer, 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.
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 179 Bente, G., KrÃ¤mer, 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., KrÃ¤mer, 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, 33(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, 71, 110-129. Bernieri, F.J., and Rosenthal, R. (1991). Interpersonal coordination: Behavioral matching and interactional synchrony. In R.S. Feldman and B. RimÃ© (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, 13, 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, 34, 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, 63(6), 962-968. Bucy, E.P. (2000). Emotional and evaluative consequences of inappropriate leader displays. Communication Research, 27(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, 4, 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, 67(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.
180 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, 7, 117-123. Carli, L.L., LaFleur, S.J., and Loeber, C.C. (1995). Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1030-1041. Cassell, J., Bickmore, T., Billinghurst, M., Campbell, L., Chang, K, VilhjÃ¡lmsson, 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., VilhjÃ¡lmsson, 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, 76(6), 893-910. Cherulnik, P.D., Donley, K.A., Wiewel, T.R., and Miller, S.R. (2001). Charisma is contagious: The effect of leadersâ charisma on observersâ affect. Journal of Applied Social Psychol- ogy, 31(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, 15(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. FernÃ¡ndez-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.
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 181 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, 143, 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, 94, 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, 18, 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 physiciansâ 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, 54, 233-242. Driskell, J.E., Olmstead, B., and Salas, E. (1993). Task cues, dominance cues, and influence in task groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 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, 9(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, 23(2), 283-292. Edinger, J.A., and Patterson, M.L. (1983). Nonverbal involvement and social control. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 93(1), 30-56. Efron, D. (1941). Gesture and environment. New York: Kingâs 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, 1, 49-98.
182 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, 17, 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. FernÃ¡ndez-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, 21(3), 163-177. Fleishman, E.A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Personnel Psychology, 37, 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, 32(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, 16, 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, 119(2), 593-609. Gallese, V., and Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind- reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 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, 113, 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, 54(2), 193-202.
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 183 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, 40(2), 463-466. Gitter, A.G., Black, H., and Walkley, J. (1976). Nonverbal communication and the judgment of leadership. Psychological Reports, 39(3, Pt 2), 1117-1118. Goldberg, H.D. (1951). The role of âcuttingâ in the perception of motion pictures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 70-71. Grammer, K. (1990). Strangers meet. Laughter and nonverbal signs of interest in opposite-sex encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14, 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. SchÃ¤fer (Eds.), New aspects of human ethology (pp. 91-120). New York: Plenum. Grammer, K., Honda, M., JÃ¼tte, A., and Schmitt, A. (1999). Fuzziness of nonverbal courtship communication unblurred by motion energy detection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(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., SchiefenhÃ¶vel, W., Schleidt, M., Lorenz, B., and Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1988). Patterns on the face: The eyebrow flash in crosscultural comparison. Ethology, 77(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, 17(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.
184 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, 12(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, 286, 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. FernÃ¡ndez-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, 4(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). Childrenâs attributions of social dominance from facial cues. Child Development, 57, 1269-1276. Keating, C.F., Mazur, A., and Segall, M.H. (1977). Facial gestures which influence the percep- tion of status. Social Psychology Quarterly, 40(4), 374-378. Kendon, A. (1970). Movement coordination in social interaction: Some examples described. Acta Psychologica, 32, 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. KrÃ¤mer, N.C. (1997). Soziale Beeinflussungsmuster in âAffekt-Talkâ-Sendungen. Eine Inhalts- analyse verbaler und nonverbaler Kommunikationsstrukturen. Diploma thesis, University of Cologne. KrÃ¤mer, N.C. (2001). Bewegende Bewegung. Sozio-emotionale Wirkungen nonverbalen Ver- haltens und deren experimentelle Untersuchung mittels Computeranimation. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst. KrÃ¤mer, 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. KrÃ¤mer, N.C. (in press). Soziale Wirkungen von virtuellen Helfern. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. KrÃ¤mer, N.C., and Bente, G. (2007). Communication with human-like machines. Submitted for publication. Computers in Human Behavior. KrÃ¤mer, 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.
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 185 KrÃ¤mer, 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.), 4th 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, 37(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, 29(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 confederatesâ touch: Confounds in touch research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(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, 1 (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, 21(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, 23, 72-84.
186 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, 4, 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, 71(5), 359-372. Mehrabian, A. (1969b). Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavior Re- search Methods, Instruments and Computers, 1(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, 13(1), 37-58. Michael, G., and Willis, F.N., Jr. (1969). The development of gestures in three subcultural groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 79, 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 studentsâ 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, 19, 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, 17, 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, 19(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.), Whatâs 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, 10, 41-50.
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 187 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, 3(2), 129-140. Pudowkin, W.I. (1961). Ãber die Filmtechnik. ZÃ¼rich, Switzerland: Arche. Remland, M. (1982). The implicit ad hominem fallacy: Nonverbal displays of status in argu- mentative discourse. Journal of the American Forensics Association, 19, 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), 17(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, 111, 246-252. Rollins, B.C., and Bahr, S.J. (1976). A theory of power relationships in marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 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. FernÃ¡ndez-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, 27, 316-321. Schilbach, L., Wohlschlaeger, A., KrÃ¤mer, 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, 44, 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, 81(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, 11(2), 97-124.
188 HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY CONTEXTS Strongman, K.T., and Chapness, B.G. (1968). Dominance hierarchies and conflict in eye con- tact. Acta Psychologica, 28, 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, 42, 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: CHIâ95 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, 79, 285-286. Tickle-Degnen, L., and Rosenthal, R. (1987). Group rapport and nonverbal behavior. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 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, 16, 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, 27(4), 357-369. Wallbott, H.G. (1994). Verhaltensbeobachtung. In R.D. Stieglitz and U. Baumann (Hrsg.), Psy- chodiagnostik psychischer StÃ¶rungen (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, 68, 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, 1, 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, 96, 395-416.