The SAGE Handbook of Nonverbal Communication


Edited by: Valerie Manusov & Miles L. Patterson

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Part I: Foundations

    Part II: Factors of Influence

    Part III: Functions

    Part IV: Contexts and Consequences

    Part V: Final Thoughts

  • Copyright

    View Copyright Page


    This volume would not exist if not for the encouragement and direction of Todd Armstrong, Editor from Sage Publications. Along with help from Deya Saoud and Camille Herrera, we had an easy time bringing the The SAGE Handbook of Nonverbal Communication into being. We are grateful for the careful copy editing work of Linda Gray and to the always diligent Astrid Virding for guiding the manuscript through production. We also thank our wonderful authors for their extensive work on these chapters. Authors provided several drafts of their chapters, responding wonderfully to our often demanding feedback. Because there is such demand for their expertise in contributing to a wide variety of publications, we appreciate their efforts even more. Valerie and Miles would like to thank our respective departments—Communication at the University of Washington and Psychology at the University of Missouri, St. Louis—for their support throughout this process. More important, we would like to thank our respective families for their constant support and patience: Chuck and Cameron McSween and Dianne and Kevin Patterson.

    SAGE Publications gratefully thanks the following reviewers: Mark L. Knapp, Jesse H. Jones Centennial Professor in Communication and UT Distinguished Teaching Professor, University of Texas at Austin; Susanne M. Jones, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities; Ross Buck, University of Connecticut; and Peter A. Andersen, San Diego State University.


    ValerieManusovUniversity of Washington, and Miles L.PattersonUniversity of Missouri, St. Louis

    Putting together any Handbook is daunting. The challenge of creating an edited volume is enhanced further when the research area is interdisciplinary, as is the study of nonverbal cues. We decided that the focus should be on communication and not the entire spectrum of research concerned with nonverbal behavior. Over the years, scholars have argued over where to draw the line between communicative and noncommunicative events. In some cases, this led to a very restricted view of communication, including only those behaviors that were sent intentionally and had a consistent meaning, at least within a particular culture. Our preference is to assume a broader definition of nonverbal communication, encompassing the sending and receiving of information through appearance, objects, the environment, and behavior in social settings.

    Choosing topics and authors to represent the breadth of the field and, at the same time, provide a discriminating analysis of research and theory, presented another challenge. There was a large range of expertise and issues that merited consideration. Although not fully inclusive, we were fortunate in enlisting scholars who have devoted much of their academic life to understanding better the processes involved in the give-and-take of nonverbal communication. This helped us in our goal for the Handbook to provide a path to understanding the subtleties of our social interactions and our relationships with one another. The chapters in the Handbook emphasize the primacy of nonverbal channels in facilitating interpersonal contact and regulating our social worlds.

    Unlike other Handbooks, the current volume's chapters are not meant to be exhaustive of the research in the area. Rather, authors were given the charge of making an argument for what is important in their respective areas. Thus, for example, Fridlund and Russell call for a move away from thinking about emotions as the primary function of facial displays. Robinson, in his chapter on physician-patient nonverbal interaction argues for the importance of a situated, focused microanalytic assessment of the cues that occur in such interactions. Walther argues that computer-mediated communication is not devoid of nonverbal cues as is often asserted but, rather, that chronemics have always been a source of message value for people communicating online. As readers work through this Handbook, they will see a range of expertise and perspective that reflects the amazing sophistication of current scholarship on nonverbal communication.

    To organize the large and diverse set of arguments about nonverbal communication, we placed the chapters into four primary categories. This first section, “foundations,” provides an array of issues that underlie all conceptualizations of and research into nonverbal communication. Specifically, chapters include the broad history of nonverbal communication (Knapp), parallel processes in nonverbal communication (Patterson), methods (Gray & Ambady), cognitive bases (Lakin), skills (Riggio), and coordination with language (Bavelas & Chovil). These issues are essential for understanding how nonverbal communication works and how it has been studied. Our second section, “factors of influence,” brings together work on the myriad forces that help shape our use of nonverbal communication. This section emphasizes the importance of biology (Buck & Renfro Powers), evolution (Floyd), personality (Gifford), age (Feldman & Tyler), sex and gender (Hall), culture (Matsumoto), and the media (Manusov & Jaworski). Each of these chapters argues for the ways in which the particular factors work to shape the practice and meaning of nonverbal communication.

    The third section of the handbook, “functions,” follows the premise that nonverbal communication serves a variety of different purposes. That is, nonverbal communication facilitates short-term and long-term ends in our social world. These functions include sending relational messages of intimacy (Andersen, Guerrero, & Jones) and dominance (Burgoon & Dunbar), expressing intentions and, to a lesser degree, emotions (Fridlund & Russell), creating and managing impressions (Keating), deceiving others or helping us detect deception (Vrij), regulating interaction (Cappella & Schreiber), and building and reflecting rapport (Tickle-Degnen). These chapters discuss the complexity of these communicative functions and suggest the importance of nonverbal cues for the communication of fundamental human endeavors.

    An awareness of the importance of nonverbal cues is reflected again in our fourth section, “contexts and consequences.” In this set of chapters, the authors work to reveal the ways in which particular contexts shape and make salient certain nonverbal processes. They also discuss the very real implications of nonverbal behavior within these contexts. The contexts we have focused on for this Handbook are close relationships (Noller), education (McCroskey, Richmond, & McCroskey), physician-patient interaction (Robinson), computer-mediated communication (Walther), groups (Dovidio, Hebl, Richeson, & Shelton), and organizations (Remland). The implications and importance of nonverbal cues are also made clear in Giles and Le Poire's engaging Introduction.

    Although we have worked to organize this Handbook into a larger frame, two caveats are important to note. First, reading across chapters shows a range of places where debate exists in the research community about the best ways to conceptualize and measure certain nonverbal phenomena. In our final chapter, Patterson and Manusov work to make these debates—about the role of learning and inheritance, about the nature and “privilege” of certain processes such as emotional expression over others—even more apparent. Second, readers will see that the chapters cross-reference one another, showing—sometimes despite areas of difference—the important connection between many of the lines of research highlighted in this volume. They also reflect just how far research on nonverbal cues and processes has come.

    Ours is an interdisciplinary field, creating opportunities to see the myriad factors involved in nonverbal communication and sometimes adding blinders to what we choose to investigate. It is our hope that the current Handbook encourages the former and discourages the latter, working to develop a full and integrated set of future nonverbal scholarship.

    Introduction: The Ubiquity and Social Meaningfulness of Nonverbal Communication

    HowardGilesUniversity of California, Santa Barbara, and Beth A.Le PoireCalifornia Lutheran University

    Nonverbal communication—in all its impressive manifestations—is central to the communication process by being “an inherent and essential part of message creation (production) and interpretation (processing)” (Burgoon, 1994, p. 239). It also generates enormous interest among academics and the general public. Evidence of this interest comes in myriad forms and practices that people find instrumental to their daily lives. Our goal in this prologue is to excite readers' understandings about the ubiquity of nonverbal communication and the ways it is developed from our very earliest of days to its instrumental role in maintaining lifelong partnerships (see Driver & Gottman, 2004, for a larger discussion of nonverbal communication in long-term relationships; Feldman & Tyler, this volume, for a discussion of nonverbal communication across the lifespan). Moreover, as an introductory chapter to a larger set of issues including the foundations, functions, contexts, and consequences of nonverbal cues, we explore the particular influence nonverbal communication has on important health, developmental, and marital outcomes.

    The Ubiquity of Nonverbal Communication

    That nonverbal communication is integral to communicative interactions is indisputable. Indeed, when verbal and nonverbal cues are incongruent, Burgoon (1994) contends that individuals often accord greater credence to the latter than to the former features (see also Remland, this volume). Her argument is based on ample evidence. For example, Argyle, Salter, Nicholson, Williams, and Burgess (1970) created videotapes of a performer reflecting superior, neutral, or inferior attitudes toward participants in their psychological experiments. This presentation of attitudes was accomplished in a design where verbal and nonverbal were congruent or incongruent with each other. In one of the conditions, a superior statement was accompanied by nervous smiling, a lowered head, and a tone of voice expressing eagerness to please. The authors found the nonverbal cues were three to four times more important in attributing superiority-inferiority to the actor than were the verbal statements.

    Repeating the study, but this time using a friend-hostile dimensions, nonverbal cues were found to be six times more important than what was said verbally (Argyle, Alkema, & Gilmour, 1971). This finding may indicate that nonverbal communication is especially important when relational messages are of paramount importance. Even in interactions where verbal communication accounts for more of the variance in meaning acquisition (e.g., persuasion, information transmission), nonverbal communication still contributes to communicative outcomes significantly (van Swol, 2003). So important is the interaction of nonverbal communication with verbal communication that numerous scholars caution against separating nonverbal and verbal communication for analysis (e.g., Cappella & Street, 1985; see also Bavelas & Chovil, this volume).

    Furthermore, nonverbal communication is central to socially meaningful outcomes of communication interactions across all relationship types. In addition to the processes mentioned previously, nonverbal cues can affect deception detection and its outcomes (e.g., Forrest & Feldman, 2000; Vrij, this volume), conflict management (e.g., Beaumont & Wagner, 2004), the communication of stigma (e.g., Le Poire, 1994), information transmission (e.g., Frick-Horbury, 2002), and interactional management (e.g., Jones, Gallois, Callan, & Barker, 1999; see Cappella & Schreiber, this volume). Nonverbal communication is also central to the establishment, maintenance, and dissolution of relationships (see Noller, this volume). Nonverbal communication is valued as so important—and beyond the scope of our quest here—as to garner the attention of scholars in thousands of studies across communication, linguistics, sociology, psychology, psychiatry, education, biology, physiology, and anthropology. Many of these studies are referenced across this Handbook's chapters.

    The Social Impact of Nonverbal Communication

    Perhaps most important for the present volume, nonverbal communication can be valued for the very real impacts it has in day-to-day living. One area where this can be seen regards health. Nonverbal communication affects health outcomes in formal health care settings, and it can also be seen to have an effect in interpersonal relationships. Specifically, parents can affect mental and physical health outcomes in their children through their nonverbal behavior (e.g., Miller, Benson, & Galbraith, 2001). In addition, marital partners can also affect each other's physical and mental health through their nonverbal interaction behaviors (e.g., Kiecolt-Glaser, McGuire, Robles, & Glaser, 2002).

    In addition to health, however, we focus in this section on nonverbal communication and development, making the argument that nonverbal communication from parents to children and teachers to children also affects the development of children physically, socially, and intellectually (see also, Feldman & Tyler, this volume). Also, we look at some of the ample research focusing on the role of nonverbal communication in close relationships, centering on the impact of nonverbal communication with relational satisfaction. Finally, whereas these important outcomes are all housed within important relationships, nonverbal communication can have important ramifications in nonpersonal relationships as well (see also Dovidio, Hebl, Richeson, & Shelton, this volume; Remland, this volume). We focus here primarily on the ways in which nonverbal cues affect people's judgments of one another.

    Health Outcomes

    The role of nonverbal communication in health care has been studied extensively within physician-patient interactions (e.g., Aruguete & Roberts, 2002; Rosenthal, 2002; see Robinson, this volume), and physical health outcomes of older patients have been linked to the nonverbal communication of physical therapists (e.g., Ambady, Koo, Rosenthal, & Winograd, 2002). Additionally, because nonverbal behavior deficits are central to autism, nonverbal behaviors are often used as an early diagnostic tool for detecting this condition in children (Bristol-Power & Spinella, 1999). Partners' use of nonverbal communication has also been linked to better recidivism outcomes for substance abusers (e.g., Le Poire, Dailey, & Duggan, 2002; Le Poire, Duggan, & Dailey, 2001).

    Nonverbal communication from caregivers toward their children has also been associated with better health outcomes for children. Specifically, as up to half of all parents are not likely to talk directly with their children about sex (Jaccard, Dittus, & Gordon, 2000), it is reassuring to realize that parenting style can reduce the incidence of sexually risky behavior. A summary of more than 20 studies indicates that parent-child closeness (which is enhanced through nonverbal expressions of warmth) is associated with reduced adolescent pregnancy risk through sexual abstinence, postponement of intercourse, having fewer sexual partners, and using contraception consistently (see Miller et al., 2001, for a review). Thus, authoritative parents seem to provide the right mix of nonverbal warmth and parental control necessary to provide their children with the tools necessary to reduce their risk of pregnancy, regardless of whether or not they are talking directly with their adolescent children about sex and the potential outcomes of risky sex.

    This relationship of greater warmth and better health outcomes holds for substance use as well. For instance, adolescents' substance use is associated with both family affection and parental control (Hall, Henggeler, Ferreira, & East, 1992). Consistently, moderate amounts of parental control and parental support are related to decreased illicit drug use, whereas higher amounts of control and support were both predictive of decreased alcohol use (Stice, Barrera, & Chassin, 1993). These results provide evidence for the contention that the nonverbal communication of warmth, in combination with higher amounts ofcon-trol, is associated with better health outcomes among adolescents.

    Nonverbal expressions of negative emotions within marriages may actually be related to mental and physical health outcomes as well. Supportive nonverbal and verbal communication is one of the resources associated with close personal relationships. Such supportive communication diminishes the expression of negative emotions and enhances health in part through its positive impact on immune and endocrine regulation (e.g., Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2002). If spouses evoke greater amounts of negative emotional expression, their actions can stimulate immune dysregulation, which may be one of the core mechanisms underlying conditions such as cardiovascular disease, osteroporo-sis, arthritis, Type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2002). Unhappy marriages, then, may be rife with negative emotional expression, which can explain the poorer mental and physical health of unhappily married individuals. Supportive communication may facilitate greater physical health through its ability to ameliorate negative emotions. Alternatively, less supportive communication and the resulting negative emotions may actually be a detriment to physical health.

    Nonverbal Communication and Developmental Outcomes

    In addition to specific health outcomes, the influence of nonverbal communication between parents and children also reaches to better developmental outcomes for children. For instance, infants rely almost exclusively on vocalics and touch as a basis for forming secure attachments to caregivers. Specifically, infants' sensitivities to vocal cues appear to be rooted in the need for security in that infants perceive up and down glides in pitch as providing important information about affect and security (Papousek, Bornstein, Nuzzo, Papousek, & Symmes, 1990). Soon thereafter, infants use vocalizations to establish communication with their caregivers. By 8 to 12 weeks, they can coo, and by around 6 months, infants can babble (Oller, 1986). These vocalizations seem to be aimed specifically at others. Infants actually vocalize more when their parents are around than when they are alone (Masataka, 1993). Moreover, when parents respond to these vocalizations, infants engage in even more vocalizations (Legerstee, 1991).

    In addition, infants' distress vocalizations occur in the first 4 to 5 months (Stark, Rose, & McLagen, 1975) and are highly potent and arousing signals for caregivers (Van Egeren & Barratt, 2004). In this way, distress cries may be the most adaptive form of communication that infants possess. Work comparing mothers with fathers, women with men, and parents with nonparents show that, across groups, people can interpret the earliest distress cries correctly (Papousek, 1989). Mothers are better at distinguishing distress cries for food as opposed to those of discomfort, however (Stallings, Fleming, Corter, Worthman, & Steiner, 2001). In general, parents (regardless of culture) respond to distress cries by holding, rocking/bouncing, singing, or talking in melodic rhythms (Keller et al., 1996; Papousek & Papousek, 1991). If the child is out of a parent's reach momentarily, the parent will begin rapid-fire, high-pitched verbalizations with a pitch that falls by the end (Papousek, Papousek, & Bornstein, 1985).

    Besides vocalizations, infants rely on other forms of nonverbal communication. Increased gaze between mothers and infants is related to more frequent vocalizations by both, but especially by mothers (Stevenson, Ver Hoeve, Roach, & Leavitt, 1986). Because infants often avoid eye contact when they are distressed, mothers of distressed infants usually attempt to reestablish eye contact through increased touch, smiling, and social play (Beebe & Stern, 1977). In addition, infants who use gestures more frequently may actually acquire language more quickly (Van Egeren & Barratt, 2004). Likewise, children who use their hands to point relatively early (some as early as 3 months) use more gestures overall and have better speech comprehension (Butterworth & Morissette, 1996) than children who point later in their development.

    Although we would caution against elevating nonverbal communication to primary or even causal status in what follows, nonverbal cues are, arguably, central to the disciplinary styles that parents enact. Specifically, parents who exhibit greater warmth and responsivity toward their children (in combination with moderate to high control attempts) have children who generally exhibit higher achievement (e.g., authoritative parenting; Baumrind, 1996). This communicative manifestation of warmth is composed primarily of nonverbal signals (see Andersen, Guerrero, & Jones, this volume). Furthermore, nonverbal warmth is related to better outcomes in children. In one study, for example, children of authoritative parents (i.e., those showing high warmth and high demanding-ness) were the most cognitively motivated, competent, and achievement oriented (Baumrind, 1991). In another study, they were also the most intrinsically motivated (Ginsburg & Bronstein, 1993). Further, they attained the highest math and verbal achievement (Baumrind, 1991). Parents with authoritative styles of parenting also had children with higher self-esteem (Buri, Louiselle, Misukanis, & Mueller, 1988) and self-actualization (Dominguez & Carton, 1997).

    Children are likewise influenced by the nonverbal communication of their teachers (see McCroskey, Richmond, & McCroskey, this volume). In a now famous study, Rosenthal and Jacobsen (1968) compared the expectancy effects of teachers who had been given high expectations for students to teachers who had not been afforded them. In this study, and the 400 or so follow-up studies (for a review, see Rosenthal & Rubin, 1978), teachers communicated their expectancies to students in the classrooms through a whole host of nonverbal and verbal behaviors. Most relevant to nonverbal communication, however, teachers communicated in ways that foster a more positive climate with students for whom they have high expectations. In a follow-up meta-analytic study examining interpersonal expectancy effects in the classroom across 31 meta-analyses, Harris and Rosenthal (1985) found significant effects for nonverbal behaviors communicating expectancies. Among them, eye contact, wait time, gestures, distance, smiles, duration of interactions, and speech rate were all significant in predicting positive outcomes. Of the nonverbal behaviors included in the analyses on which Harris and Rosenthal's analysis was based, only touch and lean were not related to outcomes.

    Marital Nonverbal Processes and Outcomes

    Nonverbal communication does not, however, relate only to the successful development of children. The valence of nonverbal communication has also been associated with marital satisfaction and marital stability. Gottman and Levinson (1992) argue, based on numerous behavioral investigations, that successful marriages have a 5:1 ratio in terms of positive to negative behaviors. They found that couples who displayed more positivity than negativity when they spoke to each other were more satisfied, less likely to have thought about divorce, and less likely to have actually separated. This ratio is especially important to marriages in which one or both partners are distressed (i.e., less satisfied). Individuals in distressed relationships tend to display more negative and less positive affect, and they are more likely to reciprocate negative affect (e.g., Noller, 1984, this volume). Negative behaviors may be the most predictive of marital satisfaction (e.g., Gottman & Levinson, 1986; Huston & Vangelisti, 1991), with negative behaviors being more predictive of marital satisfaction than positive ones (e.g., Broderick & O'Leary, 1986). This is the case, despite the fact that happier partners display more positive behaviors than do their unhappier counterparts (e.g., Cutrona, 1996).

    Negative nonverbal communication behaviors may also predict divorce. Gottman (1994) argues that the consistent use of what he calls the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” can portend the destruction of the marriage and tends to mark distressed couples (i.e., those with low amounts of marital satisfaction and high amounts of marital instability). Gottman and his colleagues found that couples in distress display greater expressions of criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling consistently. Whereas all these displays include combinations of verbal and nonverbal behavior, contempt and stonewalling, in particular, are typically potent and negative nonverbal messages. According to Gottman, contempt and stonewalling, including their nonverbal manifestations, are particularly predictive of divorce.

    To be more specific, contempt includes expressions of extremely negative affect toward a partner and can often include psychological abuse and intentional insults. Nonverbal indicators of contempt include eye rolling, disgust facial expressions, sneers, and hostile humor. It is likely that the intentional use of insults within conflict in marital relationships will result in distress as hurtful messages from romantic partners and other family members elicit greater negative feelings than those from other people (Vangelisti & Crumley, 1998). Such hurt, as part of a larger pattern of negative communication, can be destructive to family relationships in that negative communication (e.g., attacking the other, defensiveness, crying, ignoring the message), greater distancing behavior, and lower relationship satisfaction can ensue (e.g., Vangelisti, 1994, 2001; Vangelisti & Crumley, 1998; Vangelisti & Young, 2000). Stonewalling, on the other hand, includes responding to an onslaught of negative affect with withdrawal including flat facial affect. Its use implies that the issue is not worth addressing (strategically or not) and is not worthy of an emotional response. Gottman (1994) notes that men are more likely to respond by stonewalling, because they tend to be more physiologically reactive during conflict and thus may feel more of an intense pressure to withdraw from conflict situations (Gottman & Levinson, 1988). Stonewalling is one mechanism used to withdraw.

    In tandem with this work is research on demand-withdrawal patterns during marital conflict (e.g., Caughlin & Vangelisti, 1999). A large amount of research illustrates that when wives want changes in a relationship, they are likely to make demands that are followed by the husbands' tendency to withdraw verbally and nonverbally (e.g., Baucom, Notarius, Burnett, & Haefner, 1990; Christensen & Shenk, 1991; Gottman & Levinson, 1988). This pattern of conflict is destructive in that dissatisfied marriages often evidence the demand-withdraw pattern of conflict, and these marriages frequently end in divorce (e.g., Heavey, Christensen, & Malamuth, 1995; Noller, Feeney, Bonnell, & Callan, 1994; Schaap, Buunk, & Kerkstra, 1988). One of the reasons why these marriages may end is that this particular destructive conflict pattern is not easily alterable (e.g., Jacobson, Follette, & Pagle, 1986).

    We have shown some means through which nonverbal behaviors are an integral component of the communication and meaning acquisition processes through the child-rearing process on to marital dynamics and even divorce. These highly personal communication situations highlight some of the many meaningful ways in which nonverbal communication influences personal relationship and developmental outcomes. Nonverbal communication can also be highly influential across more nonpersonal relationships, however, and it is to this impact that we now turn our attention.

    The Nature of Nonverbal Communication in Non-Interpersonal Relationships

    One of the most frequently studied parameters of nonverbal communication (as we have just discussed and as can be seen throughout this Handbook) is immediacy, defined as those communication behaviors, some visual others vocal, that “enhance closeness to and nonverbal interaction with another” (Mehrabian, 1969, p. 213). Signaling (consciously or unconsciously) feelings of, or the intent to become, relationally closer to another comes in various guises and sizes, including gaze and eye contact, smiling, forward body, and vocal warmth (Andersen, 1979). Such stances can also be processed vis-à-vis inanimate objects, as witnessed in some people's responses to others who do not nonverbally position themselves “correctly” when the national anthem is being performed when pledging allegiance to the flag.

    Immediacy displays may also reflect social distance and avoidance (Burgoon & Hale, 1984). For example, backward lean and frowning, are inferentially rich to the extent they are mined by us to attribute the actor as likeable, respected, committed, credible, persuasive, dynamic, and so on (e.g., see Zhou et al., 2002). So important is the use of nonverbal immediacy to convey closeness (or distance) that expressions of intimacy and closeness differentiate between marriages that are simply enduring and those that are enduring and the ideal happy marriage (e.g., Cuber & Haroff, 1965; Gottman & Levinson, 1988). Attributional work like this can be just as easily invoked watching soap operas or TV news interviews as it is in face-to-face interactions (see Manusov & Jaworski, this volume).

    Nonverbal cues also have their optimal levels and latitudes of acceptance, however, and, as such, can be overaccommodated as in the case where some older people become the unwanted recipients of patronizing talk through exaggerated intonations, oversmiling, and slowed-down speech rates (Ryan, Hummert, & Boich, 1995). Being the recipient of such communications with patroniz-ers representing different people in different contexts over time is not easily discountable. It can eventually imply a debilitating message for the receiver that he or she is cognitively and communicatively now much older and “past it.” In other words, not only can nonverbal cues engender social support and relational harmony, they can also be part and parcel of the social construction of aging and even demise (Giles, 1999).

    The social meanings of these and other immediacy cues (e.g., the timing of events, touch, proximity, body movements) vary in their interpretive potential rather dramatically between cultures (Burgoon, 1995; see also, Matsumoto, this volume) and often appear as essential ingredients of cross-cultural training programs and etiquette books. Indeed, the absence of such cues, such as a lack of nonverbal expressiveness or neutrality, can influence important social decisions by teachers, medical personnel, law enforcement, and so forth. In his discussion of the performative nature of preaching, for example, Robinson (1980) remarked that “a pastor's words may insist, ‘This is important,’ but if his voice sounds flat and expressionless and his body stands limp, the congregation will not believe him” (cited in Mikkelson & Floyd, 2005, p. 194). Often, reactions to the presence or the absence of nonverbal cues are stereotypic, leading to inaccurate presumptions and even irresponsible actions.

    There are, of course, many other nonverbal cues including accent that people use to categorize others into social groups, often triggering allied trait attributions and their associated affect (Giles & Billings, 2004). Indeed, not a day goes by for one of us (HG) when his non-North American accent is not commented upon by strangers. Speech rate, pitch, timing, rhythm, and intonation are (paralinguistic) nonverbal cues people can manipulate to manage impressions or in forming impressions of others (Pittam, 2000; see also Keating, this volume). Paramount among these are historically sensitive dress styles and fashion, which sometimes elicit evaluative comments among (and subsequent affirmation from) older males about certain young women's dress modes, such as “I'm glad I don't have a daughter these days!” Wearing a tie, jacket, or suit can signal formality and professionalism in some work and leisure contexts yet be construed as irreverently Western in some Muslim contexts. Furthermore, being under- or overdressed can cause observational concern or lament.

    The use of spectacles or even sunglasses in some contexts, watches, designer-labeled clothing, jewelry, and men's gold neck chains; the plethora of possible hairstyles (buzz-cuts, braids, bob); and a ball-cap turned backward all have their unique social meanings and, again, sometimes stimulate passionate reactions, deep-seated emotions, and intense comment from third parties. Facial rings, lipstick colors, eye makeup, hairstyles, body size, gang graffiti and gang signs, and cosmetics are but a few of the myriad ways we can send messages out (again more or less strategically) about our ideologies, aspirations, and group memberships, be they ethnic, sexual orientation, political, or whatever (see Harwood & Giles, 2005).

    Given the recent fascination with physical beauty as evidenced by current American television programs focusing on cosmetic surgery (e.g., the Swan, Makeover), and the current emphasis on physical beauty and youth evidenced by such trends as Botox and breast augmentation, it is not that surprising that nonverbal communication emphasizing physical attraction has received a great amount of research attention. Finally, the use of other possessions transported or in the workplace and home—certain kinds of cell phones; books, newspapers, or magazines read and or displayed; suitcase style; music and movies played; new technological artifacts; cars; residence location and architecture; remodels; decorations and artwork; and so on—can communicate status and trait attributions (cultured, pretentious, lifespan crisis, macho, cheap, etc.). They can also influence encounters, even those with strangers, through the type of messages they convey.


    Nonverbal communication is of considerable consequence in many aspects of social life. Numerous investigations place nonverbal communication as central to meaning acquisition (Birdwhistell, 1970), especially in communication interactions where relational communication (Burgoon & Le Poire, 1999), emotional expressions (Boone & Buck, 2003), and impression management (Xin, 2004) are concerned. Moreover, nonverbal communication can be influential in the relationships surrounding health care, and they can also have a significant impact on important familial relationships. Children and their nurturers display nonverbal behavior that facilitates the safety and development of infants, children, and adolescents. The use of nonverbal warmth (in combination with moderate to high control attempts), for example, appears to ensure better health outcomes for adolescents by reducing risky sexual behavior and substance use and abuse. In addition, teachers' use of nonverbal behavior communicates important expectancies to students and affects the student's performance on a variety of academic indicators. Moreover, nonverbal communication facilitates the “health” of marriages as well in that more positive nonverbal communication and less negative destructive nonverbal communication (e.g., contempt, stonewalling, withdrawal, expression of negative emotions) predict greater marital stability and satisfaction and even better physical health outcomes.

    Clearly, nonverbal communication functions in important socially meaningful ways across a variety of relationships. With this backdrop accessed, we trust readers will have a more informed springboard with which to access specific chapters and the various theoretical models discussed in them. Along with the Handbook's editors, we hope that readers will see the complexities of this communication system, the many foundational issues into which it is embedded, the myriad functions that it serves for communicators, and the ways in which the context influences nonverbal meaning and process and creates relevant, and often problematic, consequences, which a more complete understanding of nonverbal communication can help to address.

    Ambady, N., and Koo, J., Rosenthal, R., and Winograd, C. H.Physical therapists' nonverbal communication predicts geriatric patients' health outcomes. Psychology and Aging17(2002). 443–452.
    Andersen, J. F.(1979).Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D.Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 543–559). New Brunswick, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Argyle, M., Alkema, F., and Gilmour, R.The communication of friendly and hostile attitudes by verbal and nonverbal signals. European Journal of Social Psychology2(1971). 385–402.
    Argyle, M., Salter, V., Nicholson, H., Williams, M., and Burgess, P.The communication of inferior and superior attitudes by verbal and nonverbal signals. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology9(1970). 222–231.
    Aruguete, M. S., and Roberts, C. A.Participants' ratings of male physicians who vary in race and communication style. Psychological Reports91(2002). 793–806.
    Baucom, D. H., Notarius, C. I., and Burnett, C. K., & Haefner, P.(1990).Gender differences and sex-role identity in marriage. In F. D.Fincham & T. N.Bradbury (Eds.), The psychology of marriage (pp. 150–171). New York: Guilford.
    Baumrind, D.The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence11(1991). 56–95.
    Baumrind, D.Parenting: The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations45(1996). 405–414.
    Beaumont, S. L., and Wagner, S. L.Adolescent-parent verbal conflict: The roles of conversational styles and disgust emotions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology23(2004). 338–368.
    Beebe, B., & Stern, D. N.(1977).Engagement-disengagement and early object experiences. In N.Freedman & S.Granel (Eds.), Communicative structures and psychic structures (pp. 35–55). New York: Plenum Press.
    Birdwhistell, R. L.(1970).Kinesics and context. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    Boone, R. T., and Buck, R.Emotional expressivity and trustworthiness: The role of nonverbal behavior in the evolution of cooperation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior27(2003). 163–182.
    Bristol-Power, M. M., and Spinella, G.Research on screening and diagnosis in autism: A work in progress. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders29(1999). 435–438.
    Broderick, J. E., and O'Leary, K. D.Contributions to affect, attitudes, and behavior to marital satisfaction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology54(1986). 514–517.
    Burgoon, J. K.(1994).Nonverbal signals. In M. L.Knapp & G. R.Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 229–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Burgoon, J. K.(1995).Cross-cultural and intercultural applications of expectancy violations theory. In R. L.Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 194–215). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
    Burgoon, J. K., and Hale, J. L.The fundamental topoi of relational communication. Communication Monographs51(1984). 193–214.
    Burgoon, J. K., and Le Poire, B. A.Nonverbal cues and interpersonal judgments: Participant and observer perceptions of intimacy, dominance, composure, and formality. Communication Monographs66(1999). 105–124.
    Buri, J. R., Louiselle, P. A., Misukanis, T. M., and Mueller, R. A.Effects of parental authoritarianism and authoritativeness on self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin14(1988). 271–282.
    Butterworth, G., and Morissette, P.Onset of pointing and the acquisition of language in infancy. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology14(1996). 219–231.
    Cappella, J. N., & Street, R. L., Jr.(1985).Introduction: A functional approach to the structure of communication behavior. In R. L.StreetJr. & J. N.Cappella (Eds.), Sequence and pattern in communicative behavior (pp. 1–29). London: Edward Arnold.
    Caughlin, J. P., and Vangelisti, A. L.Desire for change in one's partner as predictor of the demand/withdraw pattern of marital communication. Communication Monographs66(1999). 66–89.
    Christensen, A., and Shenk, J. L.Communication, conflict, and psychological distance in nondistressed, clinic, and divorcing couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology59(1991). 458–463.
    Cuber, J. F., & Haroff, P.(1965).Sex and the significant Americans. Baltimore: Penguin.
    Cutrona, C. E.(1996).Social support in couples. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Dominguez, M. M., and Carton, J. S.The relationship between self-actualization and parenting style. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality12(1997). 1093–1100.
    Driver, J. L., and Gottman, J. M.Daily marital interactions and positive affect during marital conflict among newlywed couples. Family Process43(2004). 301–314.
    Forrest, J. A., and Feldman, R. S.Detecting deception and judge's involvement: Lower task involvement leads to better lie detection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin26(2000). 118–125.
    Frick-Horbury, D.The effects of hand gestures on verbal recall as a function of high- and low-verbal-skill levels. Journal of General Psychology129(2002). 137–147.
    Giles, H.Managing dilemmas in the “silent revolution”: A call to arms!Journal of Communication49(1999). 170–182.
    Giles, H., & Billings, A.(2004).Language attitudes. In A.Davies & E.Elder (Eds.), Handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 187–209). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
    Ginsburg, G., and Bronstein, P.Family factors related to children's intrinsic/extrinsic motivational orientation and academic performance. Child Development64(1993). 1461–1471.
    Gottman, J. M.(1994).What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Gottman, J. M., and Levinson, R. W.Assessing the role of emotion in marriage. Behavioral Assessment8(1986). 31–48.
    Gottman, J. M., & Levinson, R. W.(1988).The social psychophysiology of marriage. In P.Noller & M. A.Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 182–200). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
    Gottman, J. M., and Levinson, R. W.Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology63(1992). 221–233.
    Hall, J. A., Henggeler, S. W., Ferreira, D. K., and East, P. L.Sibling relations and substance use in high-risk female adolescents. Family Dynamics of Addiction Quarterly2(1992). 44–51.
    Harris, M. J., and Rosenthal, R.Mediation of interpersonal expectancy effects: 31 meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin97(1985). 363–386.
    Harwood, J., & Giles, H.(2005).Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives. Berlin: Peter Lang.
    Heavey, C. L., Christensen, A., and Malamuth, N. M.The longitudinal impact of demand and withdrawal during marital conflict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology63(1995). 797–801.
    Huston, T. L., and Vangelisti, A. L.Socioemotional behavior and satisfaction in marital relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology61(1991). 721–733.
    Jaccard, J., Dittus, P. J., and Gordon, V. V.Parent-teen communication about premarital sex: Factors associated with the extent of communication. Journal of Adolescent Research15(2000). 187–208.
    Jacobson, N. S., Follette, W. C., and Pagel, M.Predicting who will benefit from behavioral marital therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology54(1986). 518–522.
    Jones, E., Gallois, C., Callan, V., and Barker, M.Strategies of accommodation: Development of a coding system for conversational interaction. Journal of Language and Social Interaction18(1999). 123–152.
    Keller, H., Chasiotis, A., Risau Peters, J., Voelker, S., Zach, U., and Restemeier, R.Psychobiological aspects of infant crying. Early Development and Parenting5(1996). 1–13.;2-E
    Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., McGuire, L., Robles, T. F., and Glaser, R.Psychoneuroimmunology: Psychological influences on immune function and health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology70(2002). 537–547.
    Legerstee, M.Changes in the quality of infant sounds as a function of social and nonsocial stimulation. First Language11(1991). 327–343.
    Le Poire, B. A.Attraction toward and nonverbal stigmatization of gays and persons with AIDS: Evidence of instru-mentally symbolic attitudinal structures. Human Communication Research21(1994). 241–279.
    Le Poire, B. A., and Dailey, R., & Duggan, A.(2002, November).Nonverbal reinforcement and punishment of substance abuse: A conversational test of INC. Paper presented to the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
    Le Poire, B. A., and Duggan, A., & Dailey, R.(2001, November).The influence of nonverbal communication on continued substance abuse. Paper presented to the National Communication Association, Atlanta, GA.
    Masataka, N.Effects of contingent and noncontingent maternal stimulation on the vocal behaviour of three- to four-month-old Japanese infants. Journal of Child Language20(1993). 303–312.
    Mehrabian, A.Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavioral Research Methods and Instruments1(1969). 213–217.
    Mikkelson, A. C, & Floyd, K.(2005, February).Effective preaching: How nonverbal immediacy influences motivation, affective learning, and perceptions of credibility. Paper presented at the Western States Communication Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco.
    Miller, B. C, Benson, B., and Galbraith, K. A.Family relationships and adolescent pregnancy risk: A research synthesis. Developmental Review21(2001). 1–38.
    Noller, P.(1984).Nonverbal communication and marital interaction. Oxford, UK: Penguin.
    Noller, P., Feeney, J. A., Bonnell, D., and Callan, V.A longitudinal study of conflict in early marriage. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships11(1994). 233–253.
    Oller, D. K.(1986).Metaphonology and infant vocalizations. In R. A. B.Lindblom (Ed.), Precursors of early speech (pp. 21–35). New York: Stockton.
    Papousek, M.Determinants of responsiveness to infant vocal expression of emotional state. Infant Behavior and Development12(1989). 507–524.
    Papousek, M., Bornstein, M. H., Nuzzo, C., Papousek, H., and Symmes, D.Infant responses to prototypical melodic contours in parental speech. Infant Behavior and Development13(1990). 539–545.
    Papousek, M., & Papousek, H.(1991).Early verbalizations as precursors of language development. In M. E.Lamb & H.Keller (Eds.), Infant development: Perspectives from German speaking countries (pp. 299–328). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Papousek, M., and Papousek, H., & Bornstein, M. H.(1985).The naturalistic vocal environment of young infants: On the significance of homogeneity and variability in parent speech. In T.Field & N.Fox (Eds.), Social perception in infants (pp. 269–297). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    Pittam, J.(2000).Voice and social identity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Robinson, H.(1980).Biblical preaching: The development and delivery of expository messages. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
    Rosenthal, R.Covert communication in classrooms, clinics, courtrooms, and cubicles. American Psychologist57(2002). 839–849.
    Rosenthal, R., & Jacobsen, L.(1968).Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
    Rosenthal, R., and Rubin, D. B.Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences3(1978). 377–386.
    Ryan, E. B., Hummert, M. L., and Boich, L.Communication predicaments of aging: Patronizing behavior toward older adults. Journal of Language and Social Psychology14(1995). 144–166.
    Schaap, C., and Buunk, B., & Kerkstra, A.(1988).Marital conflict resolution. In P.Noller & M. A.Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 245–270). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
    Stallings, J., Fleming, A. S., Corter, C., Worthman, C., and Steiner, M.The effects of infant cries and odors on sympathy, cortisol, and autonomic responses in new mothers and nonpostpartum women. Parenting: Science and Practice1(2001). 71–100.
    Stark, R. E., Rose, S. N., and McLagen, M.Features of infant sounds: The first eight weeks of life. Journal of Child Language2(1975). 205–221.
    Stevenson, M. B., Ver Hoeve, J. N., Roach, M. A., and Leavitt, L. A.The beginning of conversation: Early patterns of mother-infant vocal responsiveness. Infant Behavior and Development9(1986). 423–440.
    Stice, E., Barrera, M., and Chassin, L.Relation of parental support and control to adolescents' externalizing symptomatology and substance use: A longitudinal examination of curvilinear effects. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology21(1993). 609–629.
    Van Egeren, L. A., & Barratt, M. S.(2004).The developmental origins of communication: Interactional systems in infancy. In A.Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 287–310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    van Swol, L. M.The effects of nonverbal mirroring on perceived persuasiveness, agreement with an imitator, and reciprocity in a group discussion. Communication Research30(2003). 461–480.
    Vangelisti, A. L.(1994).Messages that hurt. In W. RCupach & B. H.Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 53–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Vangelisti, A. L.(2001).Making sense of hurtful interactions in close relationships: When hurt feelings create distance. In V.Manusov & J. H.Harvey (Eds.), Attributions, communication behavior, and close relationships (pp. 38–58). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Vangelisti, A. L., and Crumley, L. P.Reactions to messages that hurt: The influence of relational contexts. Communication Monographs65(1998). 173–196.
    Vangelisti, A. L., and Young, S. L.When words hurt: The effects of perceived intentionality on interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships17(2000). 393–424.
    Xin, K. R.Asian American managers: An impression gap?: An investigation of impression management and supervisor-subordinate relationships. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science40(2004). 160–181.
    Zhou, Q., Eisenberg, N., Losoya, S. H., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C, Cumberland, A. J., and Shepard, S. A.The relations of parental warmth and positive expressiveness to children's empathy-related responding and social functioning: A longitudinal study. Child Development73(2002). 893–915.
  • Author Index

    About the Editors

    Valerie Manusov is Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Washington. She has published two previous edited volumes: Communication, Attribution, and Close Relationships with John Harvey (2001) and The Sourcebook of Nonverbal Measures: Going Beyond Words (2005). She has been Associate Chair of her department and Associate Editor of the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. Her work focuses primarily on patterns of nonverbal behavior and the meanings given to nonverbal cues at a relational and cultural level. She also serves as Leadership Fellow for the College of Arts & Sciences at the University of Washington and teaches courses in nonverbal communication, interpersonal communication, intercultural communication, and research methods. One of her favorite achievements is completing the Avon 3-Day Walk for breast cancer prevention and research. She received her PhD from the University of Southern California in 1989 and worked for 4 years after that at Rutgers University.

    Miles L. Patterson is Professor and former Chairperson of the Psychology Department at the University of Missouri at St. Louis (UMSL). He is the author of two books and more than 70 chapters and articles, mostly on nonverbal communication. Some of this research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health. He was the editor of the Journal of Nonverbal Behavior from 1986 to 1992 and has been on the editorial boards of several other journals in psychology, communication, and sociology. He was the 1990 recipient of the UMSL Chancellor's Award for Research and Creativity and is a fellow of both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychological Society. His current research interests focus primarily on theory in nonverbal communication, social behavior in public settings, and the role of nonverbal communication in interpersonal influence. His teaching interests include social psychology, nonverbal communication, and environmental psychology. He has also appeared on St. Louis radio and television a number of times

    as an expert commentator on communication and politics. In his spare time, he is an avid jogger, with over 24,000 miles run, and a golfer, always with high hopes for the next round. He received his PhD from Northwestern University in 1968 and has been at UMSL since 1969.

    About the Contributors

    Nalini Ambady is Associate Professor at Tufts University. Before joining the Tufts faculty in the spring of 2004, she taught at Holy Cross College and in 1994 joined the faculty at Harvard. Her research interests include examining the accuracy of social, emotional, and perceptual judgments; how personal and social identities affect cognition and performance; dyadic interactions, especially those involving status differentiated dyads; and nonverbal communication. She is particularly interested in applying innovative and integrative methods to examine these phenomena from multiple perspectives, ranging from the biological to the sociocultural. She received her PhD in social psychology from Harvard University in 1991.

    Peter A. Andersen, Professor of Communication at San Diego State University, has authored five books and more than 150 book chapters, research papers, and journal articles. His four most recent books are The Handbook of Communication and Emotion (1998), Nonverbal Communication: Forms and Functions (1999), Close Encounters: Communicating in Relationships (2001), and The Complete Idiot's Guide to Body Language (2004). He has recently published papers on communication and emotion, nonverbal communication, interpersonal relationships, risk communication, helmet safety, health communication, homeland security, and communication and technology. He has served as the President of the Western Communication Association, as Editor of the Western Journal of Communication, and as Director of Research for the Japan-U.S. Telecommunications Research Institute. He won the Robert Kibler Award for personal and professional excellence from the National Communication Association in 2003. He is a co-investigator on six federal grants in health communication and disaster preparedness. He received his PhD from Florida State University in 1975.

    Janet Beavin Bavelas is the author of Pragmatics of Human Communication (with Watzlawick & Jackson) and Equivocal Communication (with Chovil, Black, & Mullett) and has published about 60 research articles or chapters, primarily on interpersonal communication. As of 2005, she is Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Victoria, where she leads a research team doing experimental, microanalytic studies of the unique features of face-to-face dialogue, with an emphasis on speech-related nonverbal acts (hand and facial gestures) and on collaboration in dyadic interaction. Her applied research includes microanalysis of communication in psychotherapeutic, medical, and electronic interactions and in texts related to social justice issues. Her AB (psychology), AM (communication research), and PhD (psychology) are from Stanford University, and she is a fellow of the International Communication Association, the Canadian Psychological Association, and the Royal Society of Canada.

    Ross Buck is Professor of Communication Sciences and Psychology at the University of Connecticut, Storrs. His books include Human Motivation and Emotion and The Communication of Emotion, and he is the author of over 100 other publications. He has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, the EJLB Foundation, and the Russell Sage Foundation, and his research has been featured on ABC News, 20–20, and FUJI-TV, Japan. He is Organizer and Charter Chair of the Nonverbal Communication Division of the National Communication Association. His present work centers on emotional experience, expression, and communication in human cooperation and competition, trustworthiness, and altruism; brain mechanisms of emotional communication; emotion in persuasion, including safe-sex communication; cross-cultural studies of social and moral emotion; emotional communication in clinical samples; emotional factors in maintaining drug regimens; and higher-level social, cognitive, and moral emotions as aspects of self-organizing dynamic systems emerging effortlessly from experience in social interaction.

    Judee K. Burgoon is Professor of Communication, Professor of Family Studies and Human Development, Director of Human Communication Research for the Center for the Management of Information, and Associate Director of the Media Interface Network Design Lab at the University of Arizona. She is also a Visiting Professor of Communication at Michigan State University. She has authored or coauthored seven books and monographs and over 240 articles, chapters, and reviews related to deception, nonverbal and relational communication, dyadic interaction patterns, and computer-mediated communication. Her current research on interpersonal communication and deception detection has been funded by several federal agencies. She is a former Chairperson of the National Communication Association's Interpersonal Communication Division; a recipient of NCA's Distinguished Scholar, Golden Monographs, and Charles E. Woolbert awards; and an elected fellow of the International Communication Association. She received her EdD from West Virginia University.

    Joseph N. Cappella is Professor of Communication and holds the Gerald R. Miller Chair at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. His research has produced more than 90 articles and book chapters and three coauthored books focusing on political communication, health, social interaction, media effects, and statistical methods. His research has been supported by grants from the National Institutes of Mental Health, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Science Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, the Twentieth Century Fund, and the Markle, Ford, Carnegie, Pew, and Robert Wood Johnson foundations. He has served on the editorial boards of 15 different journals. He is a Fellow of the International Communication Association, a Distinguished Scholar of the National Communication Association, a Past President of ICA, and a recipient of the B. Aubrey Fisher Mentorship Award. He received his PhD in 1974 from Michigan State University.

    Nicole Chovil is an author of Equivocal Communication (with Bavelas, Black, & Mullett), plus 15 articles and chapters on equivocal communication, hand and facial displays in dialogue, and motor mimicry. She conducted the first systematic experimental studies of nonemotional functions of facial displays in face-to-face dialogue. She was also co-investigator and collaborator on a project using discourse analysis to study the language characterizing sexualized assault in legal judgments. She has a BA, with honors (psychology), from the University of Victoria; an MA (psychology) from Simon Fraser University; and a PhD (psychology) from the University of Victoria. In 2006, she left her position as Director of Education for the British Columbia Schizophrenia Society to become an independent research and education consultant specializing in mental illness.

    John F. Dovidio is Professor of Psychology at the University of Connecticut. He is currently Editor of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology—Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes and has previously been Editor of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. His research interests are in intergroup relation, nonverbal communication, and prosocial behavior. He received SPSSI's Kurt Lewin Award in 2004 (with S. L. Gaertner) for his career contributions to the study of prejudice and discrimination. He received the Gordon Allport Intergroup Relations Prize in 1985, 1998, and 2001 for his research on intergroup relations. He has an MA and PhD from the University of Delaware.

    Norah E. Dunbar is Associate Professor of Communication Studies at California State University Long Beach. Her research interests are in relational conflict, deception, power and dominance, and nonverbal communication. Currently, she is working on several projects, including a study on the nonverbal expressions of dominance in close relationships. Her work can be found in journals such as the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships and the Journal of Family Communication. She teaches undergraduate and graduate classes in interpersonal communication, persuasion, nonverbal communication, research methods, and communication theory. She received her PhD in 2000 from the University of Arizona.

    Robert S. Feldman is Associate Dean for Faculty and Student Development and Professor of Psychology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. A winner of the College Distinguished Teacher award, he is a fellow of the American Psychological Association and the American Psychological Society. He is a winner of a Fulbright Senior Research Scholar and Lecturer award, and he has written more than 100 books, book chapters, and scientific articles. His research has been supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute on Disabilities and Rehabilitation Research. His research interests include the development of nonverbal behavior in impression management and honesty and deception.

    Kory Floyd is Associate Professor of Human Communication and Director of the Communication Sciences Laboratory at Arizona State University. His research focuses on the communication of affection in personal relationships and on the interplay between communication, physiology, and health. Currently, he is studying the ability of affectionate behavior to reduce the hormonal, cardiovascular, and hemato-logical effects of stress. He has written or edited five books, including Communicating Affection: Interpersonal Behavior and Social Context (in press), and has published nearly 70 journal articles and book chapters on the topics of affection, family communication, nonverbal behavior, and physiology. He is currently Chair of the Family Communication Division of the National Communication Association and Editor of the Journal of Family Communication. He received his PhD from the University of Arizona.

    Alan J. Fridlund is Associate Professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is a social and clinical psychologist whose interests lie in human ethology (especially nonverbal communication), neuroethology, psychopathology, and sexology. He won the Distinguished Early Career Contribution Award of the Society for Psychophysiological Research and was a member of the Faculty in Experimental Psychopathology at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the author of Human Facial Expression: An Evolutionary View (1994) and has coauthored with Dan Reisberg (Reed College) and Henry Gleitman (U. Penn.) the introductory text Psychology (2003, 6th ed.).

    Robert Gifford was born near where the gold rush began in northern California but almost 100 years too late to join in. He migrated up the coast to British Columbia in the late 1960s. After teaching at both ends and in the middle of Canada, he is now Professor of Psychology at the University of Victoria. He is a fellow of the American and the Canadian Psychological Associations, the author of three editions of Environmental Psychology: Principles and Practice, and Editor of the Journal of Environmental Psychology. His current research includes studies of nonverbal behavior in relationships, a theory of social evaluation, cooperation in resource dilemmas, and the habitability of the International Space Station. He thinks everyone should have a grocery store within a 10-minute walk.

    Howard Giles is Professor of Communication at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where he is also Assistant Dean of Undergraduate Studies, Director of the Center for Police Practices and Community, and Affiliated Professor in Psychology and Linguistics. Although his current interests relate to diverse areas of intergroup communication, he has sustained a long-standing interest in nonverbal communication by studying the social consequences of social dialects.

    Heather M. Gray is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. As an undergraduate, she became interested in the manner in which transient fluctuations in mood state influence social information processing. Recently, she has been exploring the potential effects of mood state on the ability to make accurate inferences about others on the basis of minimal information. Together with Nalini Ambady, she has investigated the effects of sadness on social acuity in a number of domains, including the thin-slice paradigm, computer-based social sensitivity tasks, and more naturalistic social interactions. In a second line of research, she is exploring the manner in which relevance to the self influences the allocation of attentional resources to incoming stimuli. She has turned recently to psychophysiological techniques to more precisely investigate how self-relevance affects the early stages of social information processing.

    Laura K. Guerrero is Professor in the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication, where she specializes in relational and nonverbal communication. She has published over 60 articles and chapters in these areas. Her work in nonverbal communication has focused on tactile behavior and other nonverbal immediacy cues, particularly in the context of romantic relationships and friendships. Her book credits include The Handbook of Communication and Emotion (coedited with Peter Andersen) and Nonverbal Communication in Close Relationships (coauthored with Kory Floyd). She was awarded the Gerald R. Miller Early Achievement Award from the International Association for Relationship Research in 2001 and twice received the Dickens Best Article Award from the Western States Communication Association. She received her PhD in 1994 from the University of Arizona.

    Judith A. Hall is a professor in the Department of Psychology at Northeastern University. She held positions at Johns Hopkins University and the Harvard Medical School before coming to Northeastern in 1986. Her interests are in nonverbal communication, gender differences and gender roles, and physician-patient communication, with special focus on interpersonal sensitivity and the impact of hierarchical roles on nonverbal behavior and communication. Her books include Nonverbal Sex Differences; Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction (coauthored with Mark Knapp), Doctors Talking With Patients/Patients Talking With Doctors (coauthored with Debra Roter), and Interpersonal Sensitivity: Theory and Measurement (coedited with Frank Bernieri). She earned her doctorate at Harvard University.

    Michelle “Mikki” Hebl is Associate Professor of Psychology at Rice University. She joined the Rice faculty in 1998, was named the Radoslav Tsanoff Assistant Professor of Psychology in 2001, and was promoted to Associate Professor in 2004. She is part of the industrial/organizational program at Rice University, and her research examines issues related to diversity and discrimination. She is particularly interested in identifying remediation strategies available to both individuals and organizations in addressing discrimination in the workplace and other settings. She received her bachelor's degree from Smith College in 1991 and her doctorate from Dartmouth College in 1997.

    Adam Jaworski is Professor at the Centre for Language and Communication Research, Cardiff University. His latest books are Metalanguage: Social and Ideological Perspectives (2004, with Nikolas Coupland and Dariusz Galasiñski) and Discourse, Communication and Tourism (2005, with Annette Pritchard). His research interests include discourse analysis, visual communication, and nonverbal communication. He coedits the book series Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics (with Nik Coupland).

    Susanne M. Jones is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. She examines nonverbal and verbal comforting and emotional support behaviors, as well as the communication of emotion. Her work has been published in Communication Monographs, Human Communication Research, Communication Research, and Sex Roles. She received her PhD in 2000 from Arizona State University.

    Caroline F. Keating is Professor of Psychology at Colgate University. She studies the nonverbal skills and physical appearances associated with social dominance, leadership, and charisma in children and adults. Together with collaborators, she has demonstrated that humans convey dominance through facial expressions akin to those of other primates, facial features that make people appear powerful also make them seem untrustworthy, people who are socially powerful have unusually good acting skills, and persuasive performances begin with kidding oneself. She also studies the charismatic processes by which groups inspire a following. Her studies of dominance, leadership, and deception (funded by the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation) have been featured in the print media, on radio talk shows, and on television. At Colgate, she teaches in specialty seminars on leadership, social bonds, and cross-cultural psychology. She received her PhD from Syracuse University.

    Mark L. Knapp is the Jesse H. Jones Centennial Professor in Communication and Distinguished Teaching Professor at the University of Texas at Austin. His publications include Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction (with J. A. Hall), Interpersonal Communication and Human Relationships (with A. L. Vangelisti), and Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (coedited with John A. Daly). He is a Past President of the International Communication Association and the National Communication Association, a fellow of the International Communication Association, and a Distinguished Scholar in the National Communication Association. He has served as Editor of Human Communication Research, and he developed and edited the Sage Series in Interpersonal Communication.

    Jessica L. Lakin is Assistant Professor of Psychology at Drew University in Madison, New Jersey. Her main research interest is nonverbal behavior, specifically noncon-scious behavioral mimicry, and its relationship to affiliation and the development of liking and rapport. Her other research interests include automatic processes, more generally, the self, and motivated social cognition. Her work has appeared in Psychological Science, the Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, and Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, as well as in several edited volumes. She received her BA in psychology from Butler University in 1998 and her PhD in social psychology from Ohio State University in 2003.

    David Matsumoto is Professor of Psychology and Director of the Culture and Emotion Research Laboratory at San Francisco State University. He has studied culture, emotion, social interaction, and communication for 20 years. His books include well-known titles such as Culture and Psychology: People Around the World (translated into Dutch and Japanese), The Handbook of Culture and Psychology (translated into Russian), and The New Japan (translated into Chinese). He is the recipient of many awards and honors in the field of psychology, including being named a G. Stanley Hall lecturer by the American Psychological Association. He is the series editor for Culture, Cognition, and Behavior for Oxford University Press. He is also Associate Editor for the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology and is on the editorial boards of the Asian Journal of Social Psychology, Asian Psychologist, the Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, Motivation and Emotion, Cognition and Emotion, and Human Communication.

    James C. McCroskey is Professor of Communication Studies at West Virginia University. He has authored or coauthored over 50 books and 250 journal articles and book chapters. He coauthored the first book on instructional communication in the field and taught one of the first graduate courses in nonverbal communication in the field. His research, writing, and teaching have focused on instructional communication, interpersonal communication, nonverbal communication, organizational communication, intercultural communication, communication traits, social influence, and communibiology. He has received numerous awards for his teaching and research from his university and a wide variety of national and international professional associations in communication, teacher education, and pharmacy education. He has been recognized as the most prolific published scholar in the history of the field of communication.

    Linda L. McCroskey is Associate Professor of Communication Studies at California State University, Long Beach. Her research, writing, and teaching have focused on inter-cultural communication, organizational communication, business communication, instructional communication, communication traits, and communication theory. She has published in several leading journals in the field of communication, including Communication Quarterly, Communication Research Reports, and the Journal of Intercultural Communication Research. She is a coauthor of books on instructional communication and organizational communication and a forthcoming book on business communication. She is an active member of the International Communication Association, the National Communication Association, the Eastern Communication Association, and the Western States Communication Association. She also has employed her education in business, organizational communication, and inter-cultural communication to launch and manage her own private business for 5 years and to serve as a consultant for a major international business organization.

    Beth A. Le Poire is currently Associate Professor of Communication at California Lutheran University. She has authored over 45 research papers in the areas of family and interpersonal communication and specializes in nonverbal communication research. She recently published in the text Family Communication (Sage, 2006) and is in the process of completing an edited volume on interpersonal, socially meaningful research with Rene Dailey at the University of Texas at Austin. She was a professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara when she completed this introductory chapter with Howard Giles.

    Patricia Noller is currently Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Queensland. For 7 years, she was Director of the University of Queensland Family Centre. She has published extensively in the area of marital and family relationships, including 12 books and over 100 journal articles and book chapters. She is a fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia and of the National Council on Family Relationships in the United States. She has served on a number of editorial boards and was appointed as Foundation Editor of Personal Relationships: Journal of the International Society for the Study of Personal Relationships, a position she held from 1993 to 1997. She was President of that society from 1998 to 2000.

    Stacie Renfro Powers is a third-year doctoral student in communication sciences at the University of Connecticut. She is the recipient of a University of Connecticut Outstanding Scholars predoctoral fellowship and has worked as a research assistant on projects relating to the communication of trustworthiness (funded by the Russell Sage Foundation), the communication of emotion in Huntington's Disease patients and caregivers (funded by the University of Connecticut Health Center Huntington's Disease Program), and brain mechanisms of empathic ability (funded by the Olin Neuropsychiatry Center of the Hartford Hospital Institute of Living). She is certified in the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) and has received training in functional brain imaging (fMRI) study design and data analysis. Her main research interests are in facial expressivity, empathic ability, interpersonal coordination, and sex differences in emotion communication.

    Martin S. Remland is Associate Professor of Communication Studies at West Chester University of Pennsylvania. His research interests include nonverbal displays of status and power and cross-cultural differences in nonverbal involvement behaviors. He is the author of Nonverbal Communication in Everyday Life (Houghton Mifflin, 2004) and coauthor of Interpersonal Communication Through the Lifespan (Houghton Mifflin, in press). His work has appeared in numerous journals in the fields of communication and psychology. He received his BA from Western Illinois University, his MA from Central Michigan University, and his PhD from Southern Illinois University.

    Jennifer A. Richeson is Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology and Faculty Fellow at the Institute for Policy Research, both at Northwestern University. Her research is in the areas of prejudice, stereotyping, and intergroup relations. Her work considers the ways in which social group memberships such as race and gender influence the way people think, feel, and behave. More specifically, her research investigates multiple dynamics of prejudice and stereotyping from the perspectives of members of both traditionally stigmatized and dominant social groups. She is currently working on three primary lines of research: the dynamics and consequences of interracial contact, detecting and controlling racial bias, and racial categorization and identity. She earned her BS in psychology from Brown University in 1994 and her PhD in social psychology from Harvard University in 2000.

    Virginia P. Richmond is Professor of Communication Studies at West Virginia University. She has authored or coauthored over 25 books and 150 journal articles and book chapters. Her book on nonverbal communication, Nonverbal Behavior in Interpersonal Relations (coau-thored with J. C. McCroskey), is now in its fifth edition (2004). Her research, writing, and teaching have focused on nonverbal communication, instructional communication, interpersonal communication, organizational communication, communication traits, social influence, and training and development. She has received numerous awards for her teaching and research from her university and a wide variety of national professional associations in communication, teacher education, and pharmacy education. She has been recognized as one of the top five prolific published scholars in the history of the field of communication.

    Ronald E. Riggio is the Henry R. Kravis Professor of Leadership and Organizational Psychology and Director of the Kravis Leadership Institute at Claremont McKenna College. He is the author of over 100 books, book chapters, and research articles in the areas of leadership, assessment centers, organizational psychology, and social psychology. His research work has included studies on the role of social skills and emotions in leadership potential and success, empathy, social intelligence, emotional skill, and charisma. He is Associate Editor of The Leadership Quarterly and is on the editorial boards of Leadership and the Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. His recent books are Multiple Intelligences and Leadership and The Future of Leadership Development (coedited with Susan Murphy, 2002, 2003), Improving Leadership in Nonprofit Organizations (coedited with Sarah Smith Orr, 2004), Applications of Nonverbal Behavior (coedited with Robert S. Feldman, 2005), and Transformational Leadership (2nd ed., coauthored with Bernard M. Bass, 2006).

    Jeffrey D. Robinson is Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at Rutgers University. He is broadly interested in interpersonal communication, health communication, and language and social interaction. He specializes in conversation analysis and physician-patient interaction. He received his BA (communication) from the University of California, Santa Barbara, his MA (communication), from the University of Southern California, and his PhD (sociology) from the University of California at Los Angeles.

    James A. Russell is Professor and Chair in the Psychology Department at Boston College. He spent most of his academic career at the University of British Columbia. An initial interest in the emotional impact of large-scale physical environments led to studies on the language of emotion, taxonomies of emotion, facial expressions of emotion, cultural differences in emotion, the developmental course of emotion knowledge, and theories of emotion. This research was brought together in a model called the psychological construction of emotion. He is a fellow of the APA and the APS. He received his PhD from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1974.

    Darren M. Schreiber is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of California at San Diego. His research centers on emergence and complexity in political systems. He studied politics, philosophy, and economics as an undergraduate at Claremont McKenna College, later attending the U.C. Davis School of Law, where he focused on civil rights litigation. He then specialized in federal litigation at the law firm of Neumiller and Beardslee. His dissertation research used functional brain imaging (fMRI) to study the neural substrates of political cognition and affect. He has shown that ideological sophisticates differ from political novices in their heightened use of the posterior cingulate, a brain region associated with automatic social evaluation. His goal is to integrate agent-based models of macropolitical dynamics with his computational model of political cognition in individuals in order to illuminate the emergence of political ideology in the mass public. He served as Research Director at the Center of Excellence in Cancer Communication Research at the Annenberg School of Communication, University of Pennsylvania, during 2004 to 2005. He earned his PhD in political science at the University of California at Los Angeles in 2005.

    J. Nicole Shelton is Associate Professor of Psychology at Princeton University. She was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Michigan from 1998 to 2000. Her primary research, which has been funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Science Foundation, focuses on how whites and ethnic minorities navigate issues of prejudice in interracial interactions. Specifically, she is interested in how whites' concerns with appearing prejudiced and ethnic minorities' concerns with being the target of prejudice influence affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes during interracial interactions. Her secondary line of research focuses on the consequences of confronting perpetrators of prejudice. Specifically, she is interested in the interpersonal consequences of confronting perpetrators and the intrapersonal consequences of not confronting perpetrators of prejudice. She earned her BA in psychology from the College of William and Mary in 1993 and her PhD in psychology from the University of Virginia in 1998.

    Linda Tickle-Degnen is Associate Professor of Occupational Therapy in Sargent College of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences at Boston University. Her research is directed toward understanding the social-psychological implications of Parkinson's disease and other chronic health conditions, specifically as related to cross-cultural health care interactions, interpersonal rapport, and quality of life. Her research is funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute of Aging at the National Institutes of Health. She received her doctorate in experimental social psychology from Harvard University, her master's degree in occupational therapy from the University of Southern California, and her bachelor's degree in anthropology from Stanford University.

    James M. Tyler is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at Purdue University. He was recently awarded an American Psychological Association Dissertation Research Award and he has written nearly 20 journal articles and book chapters. His research, which focuses on the social aspects of the self in the context of the self-regulation and self-presentation of interpersonal behavior, examines how people's behaviors and emotions are influenced by their concerns about others' impressions and acceptance of them. His current projects range from examining the relationship between the self's regulatory resources and the capacity to monitor the social environment for relational value cues to the influence that threatening social circumstances exert on people's self-presentation efforts. He received his PhD in social psychology from the University of Massachusetts Amherst in 2006.

    Aldert Vrij is Professor of Applied Social Psychology at the University of Portsmouth. His main research interest is deception, particularly nonverbal aspects of deception (e.g., how liars behave), verbal aspects of deception (e.g., what they say), people's ability to detect deceit, and ways to improve this ability. He has published almost 300 articles and book chapters and six books to date, the majority of which are related to deception. He currently holds research grants from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the British Academy, and the Nuffield Foundation, and in the past he has held grants from the ESRC, the Nuffield Foundation, the Leverhulme Trust, and the Dutch Ministry of Justice. All these research grants were related to deception. He is the Editor of Legal and Criminological Psychology and sits on the editorial boards of Law and Human Behavior, Human Communication Research, and the Journal of Nonverbal Behavior.

    Joseph B. Walther is Professor in the Department of Communication and the Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media at Michigan State University. His research focuses on the interpersonal dynamics of communication via computers in personal relationships, work groups, and educational settings. He has held regular or visiting appointments in psychology, information technology, education and social policy at universities in the US and UK. He was Chair of the Organizational Communication and Information Systems division of the Academy of Management and the Communication and Technology division of the International Communication Association. His professional honors include the National Communication Association's 2002 Woolbert Award for an article that has stood the test of time and influenced thinking in the discipline for more than 10 years. He received his PhD from the University of Arizona in 1990.

    • Loading...
Back to Top

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website