how to write a research paper on nonverbal communication

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Nonverbal Communication

Affiliations.

1 Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA; email: [email protected].
2 Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Flint, Michigan 48502, USA; email: [email protected].
3 Department of Psychology, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, California 90045, USA; email: [email protected].
PMID: 30256720
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103145

The field of nonverbal communication (NVC) has a long history involving many cue modalities, including face, voice, body, touch, and interpersonal space; different levels of analysis, including normative, group, and individual differences; and many substantive themes that cross from psychology into other disciplines. In this review, we focus on NVC as it pertains to individuals and social interaction. We concentrate specifically on ( a) the meanings and correlates of cues that are enacted (sent) by encoders and ( b) the perception of nonverbal cues and the accuracy of such perception. Frameworks are presented for conceptualizing and understanding the process of sending and receiving nonverbal cues. Measurement issues are discussed, and theoretical issues and new developments are covered briefly. Although our review is primarily oriented within social and personality psychology, the interdisciplinary nature of NVC is evident in the growing body of research on NVC across many areas of scientific inquiry.

Keywords: decoding; encoding; interpersonal accuracy; nonverbal behavior; nonverbal communication.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Search in MeSH

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

Ingenta plc
Ovid Technologies, Inc.

Other Literature Sources

scite Smart Citations
MedlinePlus Health Information
Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Presentations made painless

Get Premium

113 Nonverbal Communication Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Inside This Article

Nonverbal communication is a crucial aspect of human interaction, as it can convey just as much information as verbal communication. From facial expressions to body language, nonverbal cues can reveal a person's emotions, intentions, and attitudes. In this article, we will explore 113 nonverbal communication essay topic ideas and provide examples to help you better understand this fascinating form of communication.

The importance of nonverbal communication in everyday interactions
How facial expressions can convey emotions such as happiness, sadness, anger, and surprise
The role of eye contact in nonverbal communication
How body language can reveal a person's confidence, nervousness, or discomfort
The impact of gestures on communication, such as waving, pointing, or nodding
Cultural differences in nonverbal communication practices
Gender differences in nonverbal communication styles
The use of touch as a form of nonverbal communication
How proxemics, or the use of personal space, can affect communication dynamics
The influence of nonverbal cues on forming first impressions
The role of nonverbal communication in building trust and rapport
Nonverbal communication in romantic relationships
How nonverbal cues can be used to detect deception or dishonesty
The impact of technology on nonverbal communication
The use of nonverbal communication in leadership and management
Nonverbal communication in negotiation and conflict resolution
The role of nonverbal communication in public speaking and presentations
How nonverbal cues can enhance or detract from a message's effectiveness
The influence of nonverbal communication on customer service interactions
The use of nonverbal communication in marketing and advertising
The role of nonverbal communication in job interviews and hiring decisions
How nonverbal cues can affect perceptions of power and authority
The impact of nonverbal communication on interpersonal relationships
Nonverbal communication in healthcare settings, such as doctor-patient interactions
The use of nonverbal cues in educational settings, such as teacher-student communication
Nonverbal communication in sports and athletic performance
The role of nonverbal communication in law enforcement and security
How nonverbal cues can influence voting behavior and political decisions
The use of nonverbal communication in social media and online interactions
Nonverbal communication in virtual environments and video conferencing
How nonverbal cues can be misinterpreted or misunderstood
The impact of nonverbal communication on mental health and well-being
Nonverbal communication in non-human animals, such as primates or birds
The use of nonverbal cues in storytelling and narrative communication
How nonverbal communication can enhance cross-cultural understanding and empathy
The role of nonverbal communication in building inclusive and diverse communities
Nonverbal communication in improvisational theater and performance art
The influence of nonverbal cues on music and dance performances
The use of nonverbal communication in therapy and counseling
How nonverbal cues can affect learning and memory retention
The impact of nonverbal communication on creativity and innovation
Nonverbal communication in disaster response and emergency situations
The role of nonverbal cues in environmental conservation and sustainability efforts
How nonverbal communication can promote social justice and activism
The use of nonverbal cues in conflict resolution and peacebuilding initiatives
Nonverbal communication in storytelling and oral traditions
The influence of nonverbal cues on social norms and etiquette
The impact of nonverbal communication on self-esteem and self-perception
Nonverbal communication in religious and spiritual practices
The role of nonverbal cues in building community and social connections
How nonverbal communication can foster empathy and compassion
The use of nonverbal cues in nonverbal communication training and education
Nonverbal communication in journalism and media reporting
The influence of nonverbal cues on consumer behavior and purchasing decisions
The impact of nonverbal communication on mental health stigma and discrimination
Nonverbal communication in conflict-affected and post-conflict settings
The role of nonverbal cues in intergenerational communication
How nonverbal communication can promote interfaith dialogue and understanding
The use of nonverbal cues in disaster preparedness and response
Nonverbal communication in the criminal justice system and legal proceedings
The influence of nonverbal cues on social media activism and advocacy
The impact of nonverbal communication on body image and self-acceptance
Nonverbal communication in community organizing and grassroots movements
The role of nonverbal cues in microaggressions and covert discrimination
How nonverbal communication can promote environmental conservation and sustainability
The use of nonverbal cues in promoting mental health awareness and support
Nonverbal communication in political campaigns and advocacy efforts
The influence of nonverbal cues on workplace culture and organizational behavior
The impact of nonverbal communication on social media influencers and online personalities
Nonverbal communication in disaster response and recovery efforts
The role of nonverbal cues in promoting diversity and inclusion in the workplace
How nonverbal communication can foster empathy and understanding in healthcare settings
The use of nonverbal cues in promoting mental health literacy and awareness
Nonverbal communication in promoting social justice and equity in education
The influence of nonverbal cues on interpersonal relationships and conflict resolution
The impact of nonverbal communication on body language and self-expression
Nonverbal communication in promoting environmental conservation and sustainability efforts
The role of nonverbal cues in promoting mental health awareness and support

In conclusion, nonverbal communication is a powerful tool that can enhance our understanding of human behavior and interactions. By exploring these 113 nonverbal communication essay topic ideas and examples, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the complexity and richness of this form of communication. Whether you are studying communication, psychology, sociology, or any other related field, nonverbal communication is a fascinating area of study that can offer valuable insights into our social interactions and relationships.

Want to research companies faster?

Instantly access industry insights

Let PitchGrade do this for me

Leverage powerful AI research capabilities

We will create your text and designs for you. Sit back and relax while we do the work.

Explore More Content

100 Nonverbal Communication Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best nonverbal communication topic ideas & essay examples, 🎓 good research topics about nonverbal communication, ⭐ simple & easy nonverbal communication essay titles, ❓ nonverbal communication research questions.

Verbal and Nonverbal Communication: Principles and Cues Humans give meaning to words, and the lack of clarity and subsequent misunderstanding in verbal communication might lead to severe consequences.
The Psychology of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication On the other hand, one is to keep in mind that the main purpose of the kind of communication is to aid in the formulation of thoughts or ideas, which are expressed through speech.
Self-Awareness in Nonverbal Communication The ability to correctly use nonverbal signs during a dialogue helps to position people and interest them in an idea or project.
Nonverbal Interpersonal Communication in “Friends” Show The relationships between Ross and Monica are obvious, as they are brother and sister; all of them are friends except Julie, who is a new girlfriend of Ross.
Nonverbal Communication as an Essential Tool in Effective Lie Detection It is therefore important to increase our consciousness of the things that we are not aware of in our environment an aspect that helps us to have a broader understanding of the same environment. Blake’s […]
Importance of Nonverbal Communication to Children’s Growth Since there is positive correlation between the use of nonverbal cues and emotional responses in children, the nature of families determines the extent to which the children use nonverbal communication. In addition, Nonverbal communication benefits […]
Nonverbal Communication in Comedy and Drama Judging from her body language, we can argue that Katherina attempts to prove some point to other women, probably, about the role of a woman in the family and her dependence on the spouse.
Nonverbal Communication: The Facial Expression Finally, if someone can display warmth and express interest in the person they are speaking with, it will create a connection and help them feel more open to the gospel message being shared.
The Use of All Senses in Nonverbal Communication In these settings, using all the senses can become a key prescription in assessing the importance of nonverbal communication. In conclusion, using all the available senses in competent verbal and nonverbal communication skills is crucial […]
Nonverbal Cues and Advance Nonverbal Communication Skills It is essential to comprehend how to utilize and interpret nonverbal cues and advance nonverbal communication skills if one wishes to communicate, prevent misunderstandings, and have strong, trustworthy relationships both personally and professionally.
Nonverbal Communication in the “Seinfed” Series Jerome, in turn, actively gestures, which can be a way of emphasizing the importance of the information that a man wants to convey.
Nonverbal Communication: Decoding and Encoding Most often, I study body language by analyzing the behavior of people in cafes and other public places; in this way, I get to study the maximum possible number of people, which allows me to […]
Nonverbal Behavior and Communication Process All of the group members appear to belong to the middle to upper middle class. The place is shaped to create the feeling of comfort and safety.
Nonverbal Communication in Foreign Language Acquisition The research, which has been carried out, is aimed at analyzing the role of nonverbal communication in the acquisition of the foreign language.
Nonverbal Communication: Proxemics, Gestures, Objects It refers to the fact that nonverbal communication conveys a sufficient amount of information that is essential in many cases. For example, it refers to those active individuals who tend to penetrate the personal space […]
The Concept of Nonverbal Communication If one learns to encode the decoded features of nonverbal clues, he or she is more likely to understand the true intentions of the people around and can adapt to the environment better.
Nonverbal Communication and Workplace Relationships At my workplace, both the manager and I followed the norms of nonverbal behavior appropriate for the social situation in which we were.
Nonverbal Communication Observation The first group of the observed participants consists of a white female approximately 30 years old and a white male of the same age.
Nonverbal Communication and Relationships at Workplace The purpose of this paper is to decompose the nonverbal communication in a supervisor-employee relationship at the author’s previous workplace. In the same manner, the supervisor established proper contact with me to show that he […]
Nonverbal Behaviors and Cross-Cultural Communication As for the positive points of the article, it contains a lot of useful information that can be applied during everyday communication.
Nonverbal Communication in Advertising Industry Many of those in the film and media industries have had to use it. One can also monitor the non-verbal signals and react to it with immediate effect.
Nonverbal Communication in Business and Politics The Body Language Documentary concentrates on and illustrates the use of human body language as a means of communication. Hence, the assumption of dissimilar postures could have at least a slight impact on the way […]
Nonverbal Aspects and Communication Climate Though people rarely give an account of the nonverbal elements of their speech and the effects that these elements have on their perception of the opponent, these elements, define the communication climate to a considerable […]
Kinesics and Proxemics in Intercultural Negotiations There are a myriad of kinesics and it will be hard for the US Company to learn all of the applicable kinesics when relating to the Japanese people.
The Differences in Nonverbal Communication Between Men and Women in the Workplaces The design of crossing ones legs is also a significant aspect in understanding the nonverbal cues of both men and women.
How Cultural Psychology Impacts Nonverbal Communication
Courtroom Graphics and Nonverbal Communication
Verbal and Nonverbal Communication Strategies
Situational Determinants and Oculesics in Nonverbal Communication
Nonverbal Communication and Eye Contact
Stop, Look and Listen: Nonverbal Communication and Active Listening
Asia and the U.S.: Nonverbal Communication Differences
Behavioral Interviewing and Nonverbal Communication
Emotional Intelligence and Nonverbal Communication
Body Language and Nonverbal Communication During Physical Intimacy
Cultural Differences and Nonverbal Communication
Emotions and Nonverbal Communication
Social Interaction, Verbal, and Nonverbal Communication
Exchanging Information Through Verbal and Nonverbal Communication
Between the Lines: The Importance of Nonverbal Communication
Conflict and Its Relationship With Nonverbal Communication
Body Posture and Nonverbal Communication
Integrating Verbal and Nonverbal Communication in a Dynamic Neural Field Architecture for Human-Robot Interaction
Speech Seminar: Nonverbal Communication Skills in Intercultural Settings
Gestures and Nonverbal Communication
Difference Between Communication and Nonverbal Communication
Misunderstanding and Conflicts in Nonverbal Communication
Look and Listen: Nonverbal Communication and Active Listening
Gender and Differences in Nonverbal Communication
Effective Verbal and Nonverbal Communication
Nonverbal Communication and Children
Communication: Nonverbal Communication and Adult Social Care
Speak Without Words: Nonverbal Communication
Customer Service: Improving Nonverbal Communication
Nonverbal Communication Skills in Intercultural Settings
Identity and Nonverbal Communication in the Virtual World
The Criminal Justice System and Nonverbal Communication
Intercultural Communication and Nonverbal Communication
Alcohol and Nonverbal Communication: Decoding of Nonverbal Language in Alcoholism
Identifying Deception Through Nonverbal Communication
Appearance and Nonverbal Communication
Nonverbal Communication With Children With Disabilities
Men and Women Nonverbal Communication English Language
Nonverbal Behavior and Nonverbal Communication
Marketing: Nonverbal Communication and Reflective Thinking
How Many Types of Nonverbal Communication Are There?
What Are the Five Major Categories of Nonverbal Communication?
Why Is Nonverbal Communication Important With Examples?
What Human Factors Influence Nonverbal Communication?
Why Is Nonverbal Communication So Important?
How Can Nonverbal Communication Be More Powerful Than Verbal Communication?
Which of These Is the Main Element of Nonverbal Communication?
What Is the Most Potent Form of Nonverbal Communication?
What Are Nonverbal Communication Advantages and Disadvantages?
What Is Actual Nonverbal Communication?
How Much Body Language Is Nonverbal Communication?
What Forms the Basis of Nonverbal Communication?
Why Is Nonverbal Communication More Critical Than Verbal?
What Are the Challenges of Nonverbal Communication?
What Is the Most Important Nonverbal Communication?
How Effective Is Nonverbal Communication?
Why Are Nonverbal Communication Important?
How Many Forms of Nonverbal Communication Are There?
How Nonverbal Communication Influenced Our Social Environment?
Why Is It Important to Research and Discuss Nonverbal Communication?
What Are Nonverbal Communication?
What Percentage Is Interpreted of Nonverbal Communication?
What Are the Different Types of Nonverbal Communication?
Why Is Nonverbal Communication Unconscious?
What Are the Six Types of Nonverbal Communication?
What Is the 12 Nonverbal Communication?
What Are the Three Elements of Nonverbal Communication?
How Do Marketers Use Nonverbal Communication to Influence?
What Is an Example of Nonverbal Communication?
How Does Cultural Psychology Impacts Nonverbal Communication?
Corporate Communication Questions
Cognitive Dissonance Research Topics
Cultural Competence Research Topics
Conflict Resolution Essay Topics
Listening Skills Essay Ideas
Consumer Protection Questions
Intercultural Communication Questions
Cross-Cultural Management Research Topics
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 2). 100 Nonverbal Communication Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nonverbal-communication-essay-topics/

"100 Nonverbal Communication Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 2 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nonverbal-communication-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '100 Nonverbal Communication Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 2 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "100 Nonverbal Communication Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nonverbal-communication-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "100 Nonverbal Communication Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nonverbal-communication-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "100 Nonverbal Communication Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nonverbal-communication-essay-topics/.

A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Psychology

Volume 70, 2019, review article, nonverbal communication.

Judith A. Hall 1 , Terrence G. Horgan 2 , and Nora A. Murphy 3
View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: 1 Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA; email: [email protected] 2 Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Flint, Michigan 48502, USA; email: [email protected] 3 Department of Psychology, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, California 90045, USA; email: [email protected]
Vol. 70:271-294 (Volume publication date January 2019) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103145
First published as a Review in Advance on September 26, 2018
Copyright © 2019 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

The field of nonverbal communication (NVC) has a long history involving many cue modalities, including face, voice, body, touch, and interpersonal space; different levels of analysis, including normative, group, and individual differences; and many substantive themes that cross from psychology into other disciplines. In this review, we focus on NVC as it pertains to individuals and social interaction. We concentrate specifically on ( a ) the meanings and correlates of cues that are enacted (sent) by encoders and ( b ) the perception of nonverbal cues and the accuracy of such perception. Frameworks are presented for conceptualizing and understanding the process of sending and receiving nonverbal cues. Measurement issues are discussed, and theoretical issues and new developments are covered briefly. Although our review is primarily oriented within social and personality psychology, the interdisciplinary nature of NVC is evident in the growing body of research on NVC across many areas of scientific inquiry.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

Abel MH 2002 . An Empirical Reflection on the Smile Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press [Google Scholar]
Adrien JL , Lenoir P , Martineau J , Perrot A , Hameury L et al. 1993 . Blind ratings of early symptoms of autism based upon home movies. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 32 : 617– 26 [Google Scholar]
Agnew CR , Carlston DE , Graziano WG , Kelly JR 2010 . Then a Miracle Occurs: Focusing on Behavior in Social Psychological Theory and Research Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Ambady N 2010 . The perils of pondering: intuition and thin slice judgments. Psychol. Inq. 21 : 271– 78 [Google Scholar]
Apicella CL , Feinberg DR 2009 . Voice pitch alters mate-choice-relevant perception in hunter-gatherers. Proc. R. Soc. B 276 : 1077– 82 [Google Scholar]
Aubanel V , Nguyen N 2010 . Automatic recognition of regional phonological variation in conversational interaction. Speech Commun 52 : 577– 86 [Google Scholar]
Babiloni F , Astolfi L 2014 . Social neuroscience and hyperscanning techniques: past, present and future. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 44 : 76– 93 [Google Scholar]
Back MD , Kenny DA 2010 . The social relations model: how to understand dyadic processes. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 4 : 855– 70 [Google Scholar]
Back MD , Schmukle SC , Egloff B 2011 . A closer look at first sight: social relations lens model analysis of personality and interpersonal attraction at zero acquaintance. Eur. J. Personal. 25 : 225– 38 [Google Scholar]
Baeck H , Corthals P , Borsel J 2011 . Pitch characteristics of homosexual males. J. Voice 25 : e211– 14 [Google Scholar]
Bänziger T , Patel S , Scherer KR 2014 . The role of perceived voice and speech characteristics in vocal emotion communication. J. Nonverbal Behav. 38 : 31– 52 [Google Scholar]
Baron-Cohen S , Wheelwright S , Hill J , Raste Y , Plumb I 2001 . The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” test revised version: a study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 42 : 241– 51 [Google Scholar]
Bartlett M , Littlewort G , Vural E , Whitehill J , Wu T et al. 2011 . Insights on spontaneous facial expressions from automatic expression measurement. Dynamic Faces: Insights from Experiments and Computation C Curio, HH Bülthoff, MA Giese 211– 38 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
Benson V , Castelhano MS , Howard PL , Latif N , Rayner K 2016 . Looking, seeing and believing in autism: Eye movements reveal how subtle cognitive processing differences impact in the social domain. Autism Res 9 : 879– 87 [Google Scholar]
Bernieri FJ , Gillis JS , Davis JM , Grahe JE 1996 . Dyad rapport and the accuracy of its judgment across situations: a lens model analysis. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 71 : 110– 29 [Google Scholar]
Biesanz JC 2010 . The social accuracy model of interpersonal perception: assessing individual differences in perceptive and expressive accuracy. Multivar. Behav. Res. 45 : 853– 85 [Google Scholar]
Biesanz JC , Human LJ 2010 . The cost of forming more accurate impressions: Accuracy-motivated perceivers see the personality of others more distinctively but less normatively than perceivers without an explicit goal. Psychol. Sci. 21 : 589– 94 [Google Scholar]
Blake R , Shiffrar M 2007 . Perception of human motion. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 58 : 47– 73 [Google Scholar]
Blanch-Hartigan D , Andrzejewski SA , Hill KM 2012 . The effectiveness of training to improve person perception accuracy: a meta-analysis. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34 : 483– 98 [Google Scholar]
Bond CF Jr , DePaulo BM 2006 . Accuracy of deception judgments. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 10 : 214– 34 [Google Scholar]
Bonneh YS , Levanon Y , Dean-Pardo O , Lossos L , Adini Y 2011 . Abnormal speech spectrum and increased pitch variability in young autistic children. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 4 : 237 [Google Scholar]
Borkenau P , Brecke S , Möttig C , Paelecke M 2009 . Extraversion is accurately perceived after a 50-ms exposure to a face. J. Res. Personal. 43 : 703– 6 [Google Scholar]
Borkenau P , Mauer N , Riemann R , Spinath FM , Angleitner A 2004 . Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and intelligence. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 86 : 599– 614 [Google Scholar]
Borkowska B , Pawlowski B 2011 . Female voice frequency in the context of dominance and attractiveness perception. Anim. Behav. 82 : 55– 59 [Google Scholar]
Broesch T , Bryant GA 2017 . Fathers' infant-directed speech in a small-scale society. Child Dev 89 : e29– 41 [Google Scholar]
Brown BL , Lambert WW 1976 . A cross-cultural study of social status markers in speech. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 8 : 39– 55 [Google Scholar]
Brunswik E 1956 . Perception and the Representative Design of Psychological Experiments Berkeley, CA: Univ. Calif. Press, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
Bryant G , Haselton M 2008 . Vocal cues of ovulation in human females. Biol. Lett. 5 : 12– 15 [Google Scholar]
Burgoon JK , Dunbar NE 2006 . Nonverbal expressions of dominance and power in human relationships. Manusov & Patterson 2006 279– 97
Burgoon JK , Guerrero LK , Floyd K 2016 . Nonverbal Communication London: Routledge [Google Scholar]
Calvo RA , D'Mello SK , Gratch J , Kappas A 2015 . The Oxford Handbook of Affective Computing Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Cartei V , Reby D 2012 . Acting gay: Male actors shift frequency components of their voices towards female values when playing homosexual characters. J. Nonverbal Beha v. 36 : 79– 93 [Google Scholar]
Chaby L , Hupont I , Luherne-du Boullay V , Chetouani M 2017 . Gaze behavior consistency among older and younger adults when looking at emotional faces. Front. Psychol. 8 : 548 [Google Scholar]
Chartrand TL , Lakin JL 2013 . The antecedents and consequences of human behavioral mimicry. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64 : 285– 308 [Google Scholar]
Cheng JT , Tracy JL , Ho S , Henrich J 2016 . Listen, follow me: Dynamic vocal signals of dominance predict emergent social rank in humans. J. Exp. Psychol. 145 : 536– 54 [Google Scholar]
Cho SH , Park JM , Kwon OY 2004 . Gender differences in three dimensional gait analysis data from 98 healthy Korean adults. Clin. Biomech. 19 : 145– 52 [Google Scholar]
Christov-Moore L , Iacoboni M 2015 . Emotions in interaction: toward a supraindividual study of empathy. Emotion in Group Decision and Negotiation B Martinovsky 1– 32 Berlin: Springer [Google Scholar]
Cohn JF , Ambadar Z , Ekman P 2007 . Observer-based measurement of facial expression with the Facial Action Coding System. Handbook of Emotion Elicitation and Assessment JA Coan, JJB Allen 203– 21 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Côté S , Kraus MW , Cheng BH , Oveis C , van der Löwe I et al. 2011 . Social power facilitates the effect of prosocial orientation on empathic accuracy. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 101 : 217– 32 [Google Scholar]
Daily SB , James MT , Cherry D , Porter JJ III , Darnell SS et al. 2017 . Affective computing: historical foundations, current applications, and future trends. Emotions and Affect in Human Factors and Human-Computer Interaction M Jeon 213– 31 Amsterdam: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
Dasgupta PB 2017 . Detection and analysis of human emotions through voice and speech pattern processing. Int. J. Comput. Trends Technol. 52 : 1 [Google Scholar]
Dickey CC , Vu MAT , Voglmaier MM , Niznikiewicz MA , McCarley RW , Panych LP 2012 . Prosodic abnormalities in schizotypal personality disorder. Schiz. Res. 142 : 20– 30 [Google Scholar]
Doherty-Sneddon G , Whittle L , Riby DM 2013 . Gaze aversion during social style interactions in autism spectrum disorder and Williams syndrome. Res. Dev. Disabil. 34 : 616– 26 [Google Scholar]
Doré BP , Zerubavel N , Ochsner KN 2015 . Social cognitive neuroscience: a review of core systems. APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology , Vol. 1: Attitudes and Social Cognition M Mikulincer, PR Shaver, E Borgida, JA Bargh 693– 720 Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc [Google Scholar]
Eftekhar A , Fullwood C , Morris N 2014 . Capturing personality from Facebook photos and photo-related activities: How much exposure do you need?. Comp. Hum. Behav. 37 : 162– 70 [Google Scholar]
Ekman P 2017 . Facial expressions. Fernández-Dols & Russell 2017 39– 56
Elfenbein HA , Ambady N 2002 . On the universality and cultural specificity of emotion recognition: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 128 : 203– 35 [Google Scholar]
Ellis L , Das S , Buker H 2008 . Androgen-promoted physiological traits and criminality: a test of the evolutionary neuroandrogenic theory. Personal. Individ. Differ. 44 : 701– 11 [Google Scholar]
Esposito G , Venuti P , Bornstein MH 2011 . Assessment of distress in young children: a comparison of autistic disorder, developmental delay, and typical development. Res. Autism Spectr. Dis. 5 : 1510– 16 [Google Scholar]
Fawcett C , Wesevich V , Gredeback C 2016 . Pupillary contagion in infancy: evidence for spontaneous transfer of arousal. Psychol. Sci. 27 : 997– 1003 [Google Scholar]
Fernández-Dols J-M , Russell JA 2017 . The Science of Facial Expression Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Finset A 2014 . Talk-in-interaction and neuropsychological processes. Scand. J. Psychol. 55 : 212– 18 [Google Scholar]
Fischer J , Semple S , Fickenscher G , Jürgens R , Kruse E et al. 2011 . Do women's voices provide cues of the likelihood of ovulation? The importance of sampling regime. PLOS ONE 6 : e24490 [Google Scholar]
Fitzgerald CJ , Horgan TG , Himes SM 2016 . Shaping men's memory: the effects of a female's waist-to-hip ratio on men's memory for her appearance and biographical information. Evol. Hum. Behav. 37 : 510– 16 [Google Scholar]
Fraccaro PJ , Jones BC , Vukovic J , Smith FG , Watkins CD et al. 2011 . Experimental evidence that women speak in a higher voice pitch to men they find attractive. J. Evol. Psychol. 9 : 57– 67 [Google Scholar]
Fridlund AJ 2017 . The behavioral ecology view of facial displays, 25 years later. Fernández-Dols & Russell 2017 77– 92
Funder DC 1999 . Personality Judgment: A Realistic Approach to Person Perception Cambridge, MA: Academic [Google Scholar]
Gadassi R , Mor N , Rafaeli E 2011 . Depression and empathic accuracy in couples: an interpersonal model of gender differences in depression. Psychol. Sci. 22 : 1033– 41 [Google Scholar]
Goffman E 1959 . The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life New York: Doubleday [Google Scholar]
Gökçen E , Frederickson N , Petrides KV 2016 . Theory of mind and executive control deficits in typically developing adults and adolescents with high levels of autism traits. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 46 : 2072– 87 [Google Scholar]
Goldin-Meadow S , Alibali MW 2013 . Gesture's role in speaking, learning, and creating language. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64 : 257– 83 [Google Scholar]
Gunaydin G , Selcuk E , Zayas V 2017 . Impressions based on a portrait predict, 1-month later, impressions following a live interaction. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 8 : 36– 44 [Google Scholar]
Hall JA , Andrzejewski SA , Murphy NA , Schmid Mast M , Feinstein BA 2008 . Accuracy of judging others’ traits and states: comparing mean levels across tests. J. Res. Personal. 42 : 1476– 89 [Google Scholar]
Hall JA , Andrzejewski SA , Yopchick JE 2009 . a Psychosocial correlates of interpersonal sensitivity: a meta-analysis. J. Nonverbal Behav. 33 : 149– 80 [Google Scholar]
Hall JA , Blanch DC , Horgan TG , Murphy NA , Rosip JC , Schmid Mast M 2009 . b Motivation and interpersonal sensitivity: Does it matter how hard you try. Motiv. Emot. 33 : 291– 302 [Google Scholar]
Hall JA , Coats EJ , Smith LeBeau L 2005 . Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 131 : 898– 924 [Google Scholar]
Hall JA , Gunnery SD 2013 . Gender differences in nonverbal communication. Hall & Knapp 2013, 639– 69
Hall JA , Gunnery SD , Horgan TG 2016 . a Gender differences in interpersonal accuracy. Hall et al. 2016b 309– 27
Hall JA , Knapp ML 2013 . Nonverbal Communication Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton [Google Scholar]
Hall JA , Rosip JC , Smith LeBeau L , Horgan TG , Carter JD 2006 . Attributing the sources of accuracy in unequal-power dyadic communication: Who is better and why?. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 42 : 18– 27 [Google Scholar]
Hall JA , Schmid Mast M , Latu I 2015 . The vertical dimension of social relations and accurate interpersonal perception: a meta-analysis. J. Nonverbal Behav. 39 : 131– 63 [Google Scholar]
Hall JA , Schmid Mast M , West TV 2016 . b The Social Psychology of Perceiving Others Accurately Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Harrigan JA , Rosenthal R , Scherer KR 2005 . The New Handbook of Methods in Nonverbal Behavior Research Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Heaver B , Hutton SB 2011 . Keeping an eye on the truth? Pupil-size changes associated with recognition memory. Memory 19 : 398– 405 [Google Scholar]
Hirschmüller S , Schmukle SC , Krause S , Back MD , Egloff B 2018 . Accuracy of self-esteem judgments at zero acquaintance. J. Personal. 86 : 308– 19 [Google Scholar]
Hodges SD , Lewis KL , Ickes W 2015 . The matter of other minds: empathic accuracy and the factors that influence it. APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psycholog y, Vol. 3: Interpersonal Relations M Mikulincer, PR Shaver, JA Simpson, JF Dovidio 319– 48 Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc [Google Scholar]
Horgan TG , Broadbent J , McKibbin WF , Duehring AJ 2016 . Show versus tell? The effects of mating context on women's memory for a man's physical features and verbal statements. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 33 : 733– 50 [Google Scholar]
Hughes S , Dispenza F , Gallup G 2004 . Ratings of voice attractiveness predict sexual behavior and body configuration. Evol. Hum. Behav. 25 : 295– 304 [Google Scholar]
Ickes W 2016 . Empathic accuracy: judging thoughts and feelings. Hall et al. 2016b 52– 69
Jack RE , Schyns PG 2017 . Toward a social psychophysics of face communication. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 68 : 269– 97 [Google Scholar]
Karelaia N , Hogarth RM 2008 . Determinants of linear judgment: a meta-analysis of lens model studies. Psychol. Bull. 134 : 404– 26 [Google Scholar]
Karthikeyan S , Ramachandra V 2016 . Are vocal pitch changes in response to facial expressions of emotions potential cues of empathy? A preliminary report. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 46 : 457– 68 [Google Scholar]
Kaufmann E , Athanasou JA 2009 . A meta-analysis of judgment achievement as defined by the lens model equation. Swiss J. Psychol. 68 : 99– 112 [Google Scholar]
Kemper S 1994 . Speech accommodations to older adults. Aging Cogn 1 : 17– 28 [Google Scholar]
Kenny DA , West TV 2008 . Zero acquaintance: definitions, statistical model, findings, and process. First Impressions N Ambady, JJ Skowronski 129– 46 New York: Guilford [Google Scholar]
Klimecki O , Singer T 2013 . Empathy from the perspective of social neuroscience. The Cambridge Handbook of Human Affective Neuroscience J Armony, P Vuilleumier 533– 49 Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Knapp ML , Hall JA , Horgan TG 2014 . Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 8th ed.. [Google Scholar]
Ko SJ , Sadler M , Galinsky AD 2014 . The sound of power: conveying and detecting hierarchical rank through voice. Psychol. Sci. 26 : 3– 14 [Google Scholar]
Ko SU , Tolea MI , Hausdorff JM , Ferrucci L 2011 . Sex-specific differences in gait patterns of healthy older adults: results from the Baltimore longitudinal study of aging. J. Biomech. 44 : 1974– 79 [Google Scholar]
Kostić A , Chadee D 2015 . The Social Psychology of Nonverbal Communication London: Palgrave Macmillan [Google Scholar]
Kraus MW , Keltner D 2009 . Signs of socioeconomic status: a thin-slicing approach. Psychol. Sci. 20 : 99– 106 [Google Scholar]
Krumhuber EG , Tamarit L , Roesch EB , Scherer KR 2012 . FACSGen 2.0 animation software: generating three-dimensional FACS-valid facial expressions for emotion research. Emotion 12 : 351– 63 [Google Scholar]
Kuhl PK , Andruski JE , Chistovich IA , Chistovich LA , Kozhevnikova EV et al. 1997 . Cross-language analysis of phonetic units in language addressed to infants. Science 277 : 684– 86 [Google Scholar]
Labov W 1966 . The Social Stratification of English in New York City Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
LaFrance M , Hecht MA , Paluck EL 2003 . The contingent smile: a meta-analysis of sex differences in smiling. Psychol. Bull. 129 : 305– 34 [Google Scholar]
Lakin JL 2006 . Automatic cognitive processes and nonverbal communication. Manusov & Patterson 2006 59– 77
Leongómez JD , Binter J , Kubicová L , Stolařová P , Klapilová K et al. 2014 . Vocal modulation during courtship increases proceptivity even in naive listeners. Evol. Hum. Behav. 35 : 489– 96 [Google Scholar]
Leongómez JD , Mileva VR , Little AC , Roberts SC 2017 . Perceived differences in social status between speaker and listener affect the speaker's vocal characteristics. PLOS ONE 12 : e0179407 [Google Scholar]
Linneman TJ 2012 . Gender in jeopardy! Intonation variation on a television game show. Gender Soc 27 : 82– 105 [Google Scholar]
Lombardi N , Buchanan J , Wolf S , Campana K , Sattler A , Lai D 2014 . Is elderspeak appropriate? A survey of certified nursing assistants. J. Gerontol. Nurs. 40 : 44– 52 [Google Scholar]
Loveland K , Tunali-Kotoski B , Pearson DA , Brelsford KA , Ortegon J , Chen R 1994 . Imitation and expression of facial affect in autism. Dev. Psychopathol. 6 : 433– 44 [Google Scholar]
Manusov V , Patterson ML 2006 . The SAGE Handbook of Nonverbal Communication Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE [Google Scholar]
Martineau J , Hernandez N , Hiebel L , Roché L , Metzge A , Bonnet-Brilhault F 2011 . Can pupil size and pupil responses during visual scanning contribute to the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder in children?. J. Psychiatr. Res. 45 : 1077– 82 [Google Scholar]
Matsumoto D , Hwang H , Frank MG 2016 . APA Handbook of Nonverbal Communication Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc [Google Scholar]
McNeill D 2016 . Why We Gesture: The Surprising Role of Hand Movements in Communication Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Moriuchi JM , Klin A , Jones W 2017 . Mechanisms of diminished attention to eyes in autism. Am. J. Psychiatry 174 : 26– 35 [Google Scholar]
Mundt J , Snyder P , Cannizzaro M , Chappi K , Geralts D 2007 . Voice acoustic measures of depression severity and treatment response collected via interactive voice response (IVR) technology. J. Neurolinguist. 20 : 50– 64 [Google Scholar]
Murphy NA , Hall JA , Ruben MA , Frauendorfer D , Schmid Mast M et al. 2018 . Predictive validity of thin-slice nonverbal behavior from social interactions. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. In press [Google Scholar]
Murphy NA , Hall JA , Schmid Mast M , Ruben MA , Frauendorfer D et al. 2015 . Reliability and validity of nonverbal thin slices in social interactions. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41 : 199– 213 [Google Scholar]
Murphy NA , Lehrfeld JM , Isaacowitz DM 2010 . Recognition of posed and spontaneous dynamic smiles in young and older adults. Psychol. Aging 25 : 811– 21 [Google Scholar]
Mutic S , Moellers EM , Wiesmann M , Freiherr J 2015 . Chemosensory communication of gender information: masculinity bias in body odor perception and femininity bias introduced by chemosignals during social perception. Front. Psychol. 6 : 1980 [Google Scholar]
Narayan CR , McDermott LC 2016 . Speech rate and pitch characteristics of infant-directed speech: longitudinal and cross-linguistic observations. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 139 : 1272– 81 [Google Scholar]
Naumann LP , Vazire S , Rentfrow PJ , Gosling SD 2009 . Personality judgments based on physical appearance. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 35 : 1661– 71 [Google Scholar]
Nestler S , Back MD 2013 . Applications and extensions of the lens model to understand interpersonal judgments at zero acquaintance. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 22 : 374– 79 [Google Scholar]
Nowicki S , Duke MP 2001 . Nonverbal receptivity: the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy (DANVA). Interpersonal Sensitivity: Theory and Measurement JA Hall, FJ Bernieri 183– 98 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
O'Connor J , Re D , Feinberg DR 2011 . Voice pitch influences perceptions of sexual infidelity. Evol. Psychol. 9 : 64– 78 [Google Scholar]
Otero SC , Weeks BS , Hutton SB 2011 . Pupil size changes during recognition memory. Psychophysiology 48 : 1346– 53 [Google Scholar]
Patterson ML 1982 . A sequential functional model of nonverbal exchange. Psychol. Rev. 89 : 231– 49 [Google Scholar]
Patterson ML 2018 . A systems model of dyadic nonverbal interaction. J. Nonverbal Behav. In press [Google Scholar]
Pernet C , Belin P 2012 . The role of pitch and timbre in voice gender categorization. Front. Psychol. 3 : 23 [Google Scholar]
Piazza EA , Iordan MC , Lew-Williams C 2017 . Mothers consistently alter their unique vocal fingerprints when communicating with infants. Curr. Biol. 27 : 3162– 67 [Google Scholar]
Pine K , Gurney D , Fletcher B 2010 . The semantic specificity hypothesis: when gestures do not depend upon the presence of a listener. J. Nonverbal Behav. 34 : 169– 78 [Google Scholar]
Plusquellec P , Denault V 2018 . The 1000 most cited papers on visible nonverbal behavior: a bibliometric analysis. J. Nonverbal Behav. 3 : 347– 77 [Google Scholar]
Puts DA , Doll LM , Hill AK 2014 . Sexual selection on human voices. Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Sexual Psychology and Behavior VA Weekes-Shackelford, TK Shackelford 69– 86 Berlin: Springer [Google Scholar]
Puts DA , Hill AK , Bailey DH , Walker RS , Rendall D et al. 2016 . Sexual selection on male vocal fundamental frequency in humans and other anthropoids. Proc. R. Soc. B 283 : 1829 20152830 [Google Scholar]
Realo A , Allik J , Nõlvak A , Valk R , Ruus T et al. 2003 . Mind-reading ability: beliefs and performance. J. Res. Personal. 37 : 420– 45 [Google Scholar]
Reed L , Sayette M , Cohn J 2007 . Impact of depression on response to comedy: a dynamic facial coding analysis. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 116 : 804– 9 [Google Scholar]
Reynolds DJ , Gifford R 2001 . The sounds and sights of intelligence: a lens model channel analysis. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27 : 187– 200 [Google Scholar]
Richeson JA , Shelton JN 2005 . Thin slices of racial bias. J. Nonverbal Behav. 29 : 75– 86 [Google Scholar]
Rodriguez-Lujan I , Bailador G , Sanchez-Avila C , Herrero A , Vidal-de-Miguel G 2013 . Analysis of pattern recognition and dimensionality reduction techniques for odor biometrics. Knowl.-Based Syst. 52 : 279– 89 [Google Scholar]
Rule NO , Alaei R 2016 . “Gaydar”: the perception of sexual orientation from subtle cues. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 25 : 444– 48 [Google Scholar]
Rule NO , Tskhay KO 2014 . The influence of economic context on the relationship between chief executive officer facial appearance and company profits. Leadersh. Q. 25 : 846– 54 [Google Scholar]
Ryan EB , Hummert ML , Boich LH 1995 . Communication predicaments of ageing: patronizing behavior towards older adults. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 14 : 144– 66 [Google Scholar]
Saint-Georges C , Chetouani M , Cassel R , Apicella F , Mahdhaoui A et al. 2013 . Motherese in interaction: at the cross-road of emotion and cognition? (A systematic review). PLOS ONE 8 : e78103 [Google Scholar]
Schlegel K , Boone RT , Hall JA 2017 . a Individual differences in interpersonal accuracy: a multi-level meta-analysis to assess whether judging other people is one skill or many. J. Nonverbal Behav. 41 : 103– 37 [Google Scholar]
Schlegel K , Grandjean D , Scherer KR 2014 . Introducing the Geneva Emotion Recognition Test: an example of Rasch-based test development. Psychol. Assess. 26 : 666– 72 [Google Scholar]
Schlegel K , Scherer KR 2018 . The nomological network of emotion knowledge and emotion understanding in adults: evidence from two new performance-based tests. Cogn. Emot. In press [Google Scholar]
Schlegel K , Vicaria IM , Isaacowitz DM , Hall JA 2017 . b Effectiveness of a short audiovisual emotion recognition training program in adults. Motiv. Emot. 5 : 646– 60 [Google Scholar]
Schmid P 2016 . Situational influences on interpersonal accuracy. Hall et al. 2016b 230– 52
Schmid Mast M , Gatica-Perez D , Frauendorfer D , Nguyen L , Choudhury T 2015 . Social sensing for psychology: automated interpersonal behavior assessment. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24 : 154– 60 [Google Scholar]
Schmid Mast M , Hall JA 2018 . The impact of interpersonal accuracy for behavioral outcomes. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. In press [Google Scholar]
Sell A , Bryant G , Cosmides L , Tooby J , Sznycer D et al. 2010 . Adaptations in humans for assessing physical strength from the voice. Proc. R. Soc. B 277 : 3509– 18 [Google Scholar]
Sibai FN , Hosani HI , Naqbi RN , Dhanhani S , Shehhi S 2011 . Iris recognition using artificial neural networks. Expert Syst. Appl. 38 : 5940– 46 [Google Scholar]
Skorska MN , Geniole SN , Vrysen BM , McCormick CM , Bogaert AF 2015 . Facial structure predicts sexual orientation in both men and women. Arch. Sex. Behav. 44 : 1377– 94 [Google Scholar]
Smith-Genthôs R , Reich DA , Lakin J , Casa de Calvo M 2015 . The tongue-tied chameleon: the role of nonconscious mimicry in the behavioral confirmation process. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 56 : 179– 82 [Google Scholar]
Sulpizio S , Kuroda K , Dalsasso M , Asakawa T , Bornstein MH et al. 2018 . Discriminating between mothers' infant- and adult-directed speech: cross-linguistic generalizability from Japanese to Italian and German. Neurosci. Res. 133 : 21– 27 [Google Scholar]
Takemura N , Makihara Y , Moramatsu D , Echigo T , Yasushi Y 2018 . On input/output architectures for convolutional neural network-based cross-view gait recognition. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology Piscataway, NJ: IEEE. In press [Google Scholar]
Thimm C , Rademacher U , Kruse L 1998 . Age stereotypes and patronizing messages: features of age-adapted speech in technical instructions to the elderly. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 26 : 66– 82 [Google Scholar]
Todorov A 2017 . Face Value: The Irresistible Influence of First Impressions Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Todorov A , Olivola CY , Dotsch R , Mende-Siedlecki P 2015 . Social attributions from faces: determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66 : 519– 45 [Google Scholar]
Trevisan DA , Bowering M , Birmingham E 2016 . Alexithymia, but not autism spectrum disorder, may be related to the production of emotional facial expressions. Mol. Autism Brain Cogn. Behav. 7 : 46 [Google Scholar]
Van Bezooijen R 1995 . Sociocultural aspects of pitch differences between Japanese and Dutch women. Lang. Speech 38 : 253– 65 [Google Scholar]
Vazire S , Naumann LP , Rentfrow PJ , Gosling SD 2008 . Portrait of a narcissist: manifestations of narcissism in physical appearance. J. Res. Personal. 42 : 1439– 47 [Google Scholar]
Vicaria IM , Dickens L 2016 . Meta-analyses of the intra- and interpersonal outcomes of interpersonal coordination. J. Nonverbal Behav. 40 : 335– 61 [Google Scholar]
West TV , Kenny DA 2011 . The truth and bias model of judgment. Psychol. Rev. 118 : 357– 78 [Google Scholar]
Wiener M , Devoe S , Rubinow S , Geller J 1972 . Nonverbal behavior and nonverbal communication. Psychol. Rev. 79 : 185– 214 [Google Scholar]
Wieser MJ , Pauli P , Grosseibl M , Molzow I , Mühlberger A 2010 . Virtual social interactions in social anxiety: the impact of sex, gaze, and interpersonal distance. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 13 : 547– 54 [Google Scholar]
Williams K , Herman R 2011 . Linking resident behavior to dementia care communication: effects of emotional tone. Behav. Ther. 42 : 42– 46 [Google Scholar]
Witt PL , Wheeless LR , Allen M 2006 . The relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning: a meta-analysis. Classroom Communication and Instructional Processes: Advances through Meta-Analysis BM Gayle, RW Preiss, N Burrell, M Allen 149– 68 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
Yirmiya N , Kasari C , Sigman M , Mundy P 1989 . Facial expressions of affect in autistic, mentally retarded and normal children. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 30 : 725– 35 [Google Scholar]
Zaki J 2013 . Cue integration: a common framework for social cognition and physical perception. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8 : 296– 312 [Google Scholar]
Zaki J , Weber J , Bolger N , Ochsner K 2009 . The neural bases of empathic accuracy. PNAS 106 : 11382– 87 [Google Scholar]
Zangl R , Mills D 2007 . Increased brain activity to infant‐directed speech in 6‐ and 13‐month‐old infants. Infancy 11 : 31– 62 [Google Scholar]
Zebrowitz LA , Collins MA 1997 . Accurate social perception at zero acquaintance: the affordances of a Gibsonian approach. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 1 : 204– 23 [Google Scholar]
Zhang J , Reid SA , Gasiorek J , Palomares NA 2018 . Voice pitch variation and status differentiation in mixed-sex dyads: a test of expectation states theory, role congruity theory, and the biosocial model. Commun. Res. In press [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, job burnout, executive functions, social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective, on happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it, mediation analysis, missing data analysis: making it work in the real world, grounded cognition, personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model, motivational beliefs, values, and goals.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

4 Nonverbal Communication

Introduction

When we think about communication, we most often focus on how we exchange information using words. While verbal communication is important, humans relied on nonverbal communication for thousands of years before we developed the capability to communicate with words. Nonverbal communication is a process of generating meaning using behavior other than words (Depaulo & Friedman, 1998). Rather than thinking of nonverbal communication as the opposite of or as separate from verbal communication, it’s more accurate to view them as operating side by side—as part of the same system.

The content and composition of verbal and nonverbal communication also differs. In terms of content, nonverbal communication tends to do the work of communicating emotions more than verbal. In terms of composition, although there are rules of grammar that structure our verbal communication, no such official guides govern our use of nonverbal signals. Likewise, there are not dictionaries and thesauruses of nonverbal communication like there are with verbal symbols. Finally, whereas we humans are unique in our capacity to abstract and transcend space and time using verbal symbols, we are not the only creatures that engage in nonverbal communication (Hargie, 2011).

These are just some of the characteristics that differentiate verbal communication from nonverbal, and in the remainder of this chapter, we will discuss in more detail the principles, functions, and types of nonverbal communication and conclude with some guidance on how to improve our nonverbal communication competence.

4.1 Principles and Functions of Nonverbal Communication

A channel is the sensory route on which a message travels. Verbal, or word-based, communication usually only relies on one channel, because spoken language is transmitted through sound and picked up by our ears, and text based communication is picked up by our eyes. All five of our senses, on the other hand, can take in nonverbal communication. Since most of our communication relies on visual and auditory channels, those will be the primary focus. But, we can also receive messages and generate meaning through touch, taste, and smell. To define further nonverbal communication, we need to distinguish between vocal and verbal aspects of communication. Verbal and nonverbal communication include both vocal and non-vocal elements. A vocal element of verbal communication is spoken words—for example, “Come back here.” A vocal element of nonverbal communication is paralanguage (Qiang, 2013). Paralanguage is the vocalized but not verbal part of a spoken message, such as speaking rate, volume, and pitch. (In other words, paralanguage is everything that comes out of your throat as a sound, but is not a word.) Non-vocal elements of verbal communication include the use of unspoken symbols to convey meaning. Non-vocal elements of nonverbal communication include body language such as gestures, facial expressions, and eye contact. Gestures are non-vocal and nonverbal since most of them do not refer to a specific word like a written or signed symbol does.

Nonverbal Communication Conveys Important Information

You have probably heard that more meaning is generated from nonverbal communication than from verbal. Some studies have claimed that 90 percent of our meaning is derived from nonverbal signals, but more recent and reliable findings claim that it is closer to 65 percent (Guerrero & Floyd, 2006). We may rely more on nonverbal signals in situations where verbal and nonverbal messages conflict and in situations where emotional or relational communication is taking place (Hargie, 2011). For example, when someone asks a question and we are not sure about the “angle” they are taking, we may hone in on nonverbal cues to fill in the meaning. For example, the question “What are you doing tonight?” could mean any number of things, but we could rely on posture, tone of voice, and eye contact to see if the person is just curious, suspicious, or hinting that they would like company for the evening.

We also put more weight on nonverbal communication when determining a person’s credibility (Burgoon, Birk, & Pfau, 1990). For example, if a classmate delivers a speech in class and her verbal content seems well researched and unbiased, but her nonverbal communication is poor (her voice is monotone, she avoids eye contact, she fidgets), she will likely not be viewed as credible. Conversely, in some situations, verbal communication might carry more meaning than nonverbal. In interactions where information exchange is the focus, at a briefing at work, for example, verbal communication likely accounts for much more of the meaning generated. Despite this exception, a key principle of nonverbal communication is that it often takes on more meaning in interpersonal and/or emotional exchanges.

Nonverbal Communication Is More Involuntary than Verbal

We verbally communicate involuntarily in some instances (Porter, ten Brinke, & Wallace, 2012). These types of exclamations are often verbal responses to a surprising stimulus. For example, we say “owww!” when we stub our toe or scream “stop!” when we see someone heading toward danger. Involuntary nonverbal signals are much more common. Although most nonverbal communication is not completely involuntary, it is more below our consciousness than verbal communication. Therefore, it is more difficult to control.

The involuntary nature of much nonverbal communication makes it more difficult to control or “fake” (Porter, ten Brinke, & Wallace, 2012). For example, although you can consciously smile a little and shake hands with someone when you first see them, it is difficult to fake that you are “happy” to meet someone. Nonverbal communication leaks out in ways that expose our underlying thoughts or feelings. Spokespeople, lawyers, or other public representatives who are the “face” of a politician, celebrity, corporation, or organization must learn to control their facial expressions and other nonverbal communication so they can effectively convey the message of their employer or client without having their personal thoughts and feelings leak through. Poker players, therapists, police officers, doctors, teachers, and actors are also in professions that often require them to have more awareness of and control over their nonverbal communication.

Have you ever tried to conceal your surprise, suppress your anger, or act joyful even when you weren’t? Most people whose careers don’t involve conscious manipulation of nonverbal signals find it difficult to control or suppress them. While we can consciously decide to stop sending verbal messages, our nonverbal communication always has the potential of generating meaning for another person, whether we mean it to or not. The teenager who decides to shut out his dad and not communicate with him still sends a message with his “blank” stare (still a facial expression) and lack of movement (still a gesture). In this sense, nonverbal communication is “irrepressible” (Andersen, 1999).

Nonverbal Communication Is More Ambiguous

Man in a plaid shirt leaning against an outdoor post. He is winking.

We know that the symbolic and abstract nature of language can lead to misunderstandings, but nonverbal communication is even more ambiguous (Neill, 2017). As with verbal communication, most of our nonverbal signals can be linked to multiple meanings, but unlike words, many nonverbal signals do not have any one specific meaning. If you have ever had someone wink at you and did not know why, you have probably experienced this uncertainty. Did they wink to express their affection for you, their pleasure with something you just did, or because you share some inside knowledge or joke?

Just as we look at context clues in a sentence or paragraph to derive meaning from a particular word, we can look for context clues in various sources of information like the physical environment, other nonverbal signals, or verbal communication to make sense of a particular nonverbal cue. Unlike verbal communication, however, nonverbal communication does not have explicit rules of grammar that bring structure, order, and agreed-on patterns of usage (Neill, 2017). Instead, we implicitly learn norms of nonverbal communication, which leads to greater variance. In general, we exhibit more idiosyncrasies in our usage of nonverbal communication than we do with verbal communication, which also increases the ambiguity of nonverbal communication.

Nonverbal Communication Is More Credible

Although we can rely on verbal communication to fill in the blanks sometimes left by nonverbal expressions, we often put more trust into what people do over what they say. This is especially true in times of stress or danger when our behaviors become more instinctual and we rely on older systems of thinking and acting that evolved before our ability to speak and write (Andersen, 1999). This innateness creates intuitive feelings about the genuineness of nonverbal communication, and this genuineness relates back to our earlier discussion about the sometimes involuntary and often subconscious nature of nonverbal communication. An example of the innateness of nonverbal signals can be found in children who have been blind since birth but still exhibit the same facial expressions as other children. In short, the involuntary or subconscious nature of nonverbal communication makes it less easy to fake, which makes it seem more honest and credible. We will learn more about the role that nonverbal communication plays in deception later in this chapter.

4.2 Functions of Nonverbal Communication

A primary function of nonverbal communication is to convey meaning by reinforcing, substituting for, or contradicting verbal communication. Nonverbal communication is also used to influence others and regulate conversational flow. Perhaps even more important are the ways in which nonverbal communication functions as a central part of relational communication and identity expression.

Nonverbal Communication Conveys Meaning

Nonverbal communication conveys meaning by reinforcing, substituting for, or contradicting verbal communication. As we’ve already learned, verbal and nonverbal communication are two parts of the same system that often work side by side, helping us generate meaning.

Photograph of a man holding a thumbs up gesture. Only his hand is in focus.

In terms of reinforcing verbal communication, gestures can help describe a space or shape that another person is unfamiliar with in ways that words alone cannot. Gestures also reinforce basic meaning—for example, pointing to the door when you tell someone to leave. Facial expressions reinforce the emotional states we convey through verbal communication. For example, smiling while telling a funny story better conveys your emotions (Hargie, 2011). Vocal variation can help us emphasize a particular part of a message, which helps reinforce a word or sentence’s meaning. For example, saying, “How was your weekend?” conveys a different meaning than “How was your weekend ?”

Nonverbal communication can substitute for verbal communication in a variety of ways. Nonverbal communication can convey a great deal of meaning when verbal communication is not effective because of language barriers. Language barriers are present when a person has not yet learned to speak or loses the ability to speak. For example, babies who have not yet developed language skills make facial expressions, at a few months old, that are similar to those of adults and therefore can generate meaning (Oster, Hegley, & Nagel, 1992). People who have developed language skills but cannot use them because they have temporarily or permanently lost them can still communicate nonverbally. Although it is always a good idea to learn some of the local language when you travel, gestures such as pointing or demonstrating the size or shape of something may suffice in basic interactions.

Nonverbal communication is also useful in a quiet situation where verbal communication would be disturbing; for example, you may use a gesture to signal to a friend that you are ready to leave the library. Crowded or loud places can also impede verbal communication and lead people to rely more on nonverbal messages (Krauss, Chen, & Chawla, 1996). Getting a server or bartender’s attention with a hand gesture is definitely more polite than yelling, “Hey you!” Finally, there are just times when we know it is better not to say something aloud. If you want to point out a person’s unusual outfit or signal to a friend that you think his or her date is a loser, you are probably more likely to do that nonverbally.

Last, nonverbal communication can convey meaning by contradicting verbal communication. As we learned earlier, we often perceive nonverbal communication to be more credible than verbal communication. This is especially true when we receive mixed messages , or messages in which verbal and nonverbal signals contradict each other. For example, a person may say, “You can’t do anything right!” in a mean tone but follow that up with a wink, which could indicate the person is teasing or joking. Mixed messages lead to uncertainty and confusion on the part of receivers, which leads us to look for more information to try to determine which message is more credible. If we are unable to resolve the discrepancy, we are likely to react negatively and potentially withdraw from the interaction (Hargie, 2011). Persistent mixed messages can lead to relational distress and hurt a person’s credibility in professional settings.

Nonverbal Communication Influences Others

Nonverbal communication can be used to influence people in a variety of ways, but the most common way is through deception (Vrij, Hartwig, & Granhag, 2019). Deception is typically thought of as the intentional act of altering information to influence another person, which means that it extends beyond lying to include concealing, omitting, or exaggerating information. While verbal communication is to blame for the content of the deception, nonverbal communication partners with the language through deceptive acts to be more convincing. Since most of us intuitively believe that nonverbal communication is more credible than verbal communication, we often intentionally try to control our nonverbal communication when we are engaging in deception. Likewise, we try to evaluate other people’s nonverbal communication to determine the veracity of their messages (Vrij, Hartwig, & Granhag, 2019). Students initially seem surprised when we discuss the prevalence of deception, but their surprise diminishes once they realize that deception is not always malevolent, mean, or hurtful. Deception obviously has negative connotations, but people engage in deception for many reasons (to excuse our own mistakes, be polite to others, or influence others’ behaviors or perceptions).

The fact that deception served an important evolutionary purpose helps explain its prevalence among humans today. Species that are capable of deception have a higher survival rate. Other animals engage in nonverbal deception that helps them attract mates, hide from predators, and trap prey (Andersen, 1999). To put it bluntly, the better at deception a creature is, the more likely it is to survive. So, over time, the humans that were better liars were the ones that got their genes passed on. However, the fact that lying played a part in our survival as a species does not give us a license to lie.

Aside from deception, we can use nonverbal communication to “take the edge off” a critical or unpleasant message in an attempt to influence the reaction of the other person. We can also use eye contact and proximity to get someone to move or leave an area. For example, hungry diners waiting to snag a first-come-first-serve table in a crowded restaurant send messages to the people who have already eaten and paid that it’s time to go. People on competition reality television shows like Survivor and Big Brother play what they have come to term a “social game.” The social aspects of the game involve the manipulation of verbal and nonverbal cues to send strategic messages about oneself in an attempt to influence others. Nonverbal cues such as length of conversational turn, volume, posture, touch, eye contact, and choices of clothing and accessories can become part of a player’s social game strategy. Although reality television is not a reflection of real life, people still engage in competition and strategically change their communication to influence others, making it important to be aware of how we nonverbally influence others and how they may try to influence us.

Nonverbal Communication Regulates Conversational Flow

Conversational interaction has been likened to a dance, where each person has to make moves and take turns without stepping on the other’s toes. Nonverbal communication helps us regulate our conversations so we do not end up constantly interrupting each other or waiting in awkward silences between speaker turns. Pitch, which is a part of vocalics, helps us cue others into our conversational intentions. A rising pitch typically indicates a question and a falling pitch indicates the end of a thought or the end of a conversational turn. We can also use a falling pitch to indicate closure, which can be very useful at the end of a speech to signal to the audience that you are finished, which cues the applause and prevents an awkward silence that the speaker ends up filling with “That’s it” or “Thank you.” We also signal our turn is coming to an end by stopping hand gestures and shifting our eye contact to the person who we think will speak next (Hargie, 2011). Conversely, we can “hold the floor” with nonverbal signals even when we are not exactly sure what we are going to say next. Repeating a hand gesture or using one or more verbal fillers can extend our turn even though we are not verbally communicating at the moment.

Nonverbal Communication Affects Relationships

To relate successfully to other people, we must possess some skill at encoding and decoding nonverbal communication. The nonverbal messages we send and receive influence our relationships in positive and negative ways and can work to bring people together or push them apart. Nonverbal communication in the form of tie signs, immediacy behaviors, and expressions of emotion are just three of many examples that illustrate how nonverbal communication affects our relationships.

Immediacy behaviors play a central role in bringing people together. Some scholars have identified them as the most important function of nonverbal communication (Andersen & Andersen, 2005). Immediacy behaviors are verbal and nonverbal behaviors that lessen real or perceived physical and psychological distance between communicators and include things like smiling, nodding, making eye contact, and occasionally engaging in social, polite, or professional touch (Comadena, Hunt, & Simonds, 2007). Immediacy behaviors are a good way of creating rapport, or a friendly and positive connection between people. Skilled nonverbal communicators are more likely to be able to create rapport with others due to attention-getting expressiveness, warm initial greetings, and an ability to get “in tune” with others, which conveys empathy (Riggio, 1992). These skills are important to help initiate and maintain relationships.

While verbal communication is our primary tool for solving problems and providing detailed instructions, nonverbal communication is our primary tool for communicating emotions. This makes sense when we remember that nonverbal communication emerged before verbal communication and was the channel through which we expressed anger, fear, and love for thousands of years of human history (Andersen, 1999). Touch and facial expressions are two primary ways we express emotions nonverbally. Love is a primary emotion that we express nonverbally and that forms the basis of our close relationships. Although no single facial expression for love has been identified, it is expressed through prolonged eye contact, close interpersonal distances, increased touch, and increased time spent together, among other things. Given many people’s limited emotional vocabulary, nonverbal expressions of emotion are central to our relationships.

Nonverbal Communication Expresses Our Identities

Nonverbal communication expresses who we are. Our identities (the groups to which we belong, our cultures, our hobbies and interests, etc.) are conveyed nonverbally through the way we set up our living and working spaces, the clothes we wear, the way we carry ourselves, and the accents and tones of our voices (Canfield, 2002). Our physical bodies give others impressions about who we are, and some of these features are more under our control than others are. Height, for example, has been shown to influence how people are treated and perceived in various contexts. Our level of attractiveness also influences how we perceive ourselves and how people perceive us. Although we can temporarily alter our height or looks—for example, with different shoes or different color contact lenses—we can only permanently alter these features using more invasive and costly measures such as cosmetic surgery. We have more control over some other aspects of nonverbal communication in terms of how we communicate our identities. For example, the way we carry and present ourselves through posture, eye contact, and tone of voice can be altered to present ourselves as warm or distant depending on the context.

Aside from our physical body, artifacts , which are the objects and possessions that surround us, also communicate our identities. Examples of artifacts include our clothes, jewelry, and space decorations. In all the previous examples, implicit norms or explicit rules can affect how we nonverbally present ourselves. For example, in a particular workplace, it may be a norm (implicit) for people in management positions to dress casually, or it may be a rule (explicit) that different levels of employees wear different uniforms or follow particular dress codes. We can also use nonverbal communication to express identity characteristics that do not match up with who we actually think we are. Through changes to nonverbal signals, a capable person can try to appear helpless, a guilty person can try to appear innocent, or an uninformed person can try to appear credible.

4.3 Types of Nonverbal Communication

Just as verbal language is broken up into various categories, there are also different types of nonverbal communication. As we learn about each type of nonverbal signal, keep in mind that nonverbals often work in concert with each other, combining to repeat, modify, or contradict the verbal message being sent.

The word kinesics comes from the root word kinesis , which means “movement,” and refers to the study of hand, arm, body, and face movements (Harrigan, 2005). Specifically, this section will outline the use of gestures, head movements and posture, eye contact, and facial expressions as nonverbal communication.

There are three main types of gestures: adaptors, emblems, and illustrators (Andersen, 1999). Adaptors are touching behaviors and movements that indicate internal states typically related to arousal or anxiety. Adaptors can be targeted toward the self, objects, or others. In regular social situations, adaptors result from uneasiness, anxiety, or a general sense that we are not in control of our surroundings. Many of us subconsciously click pens, shake our legs, or engage in other adaptors during classes, meetings, or while waiting as a way to do something with our excess energy. Public speaking students who watch video recordings of their speeches notice nonverbal adaptors that they did not know they used. In public speaking situations, people most commonly use self- or object-focused adaptors.

Photograph of a hand against a white background holding the OK hand sign.

Emblems are gestures that have a specific agreed-on meaning within a cultural context. A hitchhiker’s raised thumb, the “OK” sign with thumb and index finger connected in a circle with the other three fingers sticking up, and the raised middle finger are all examples of emblems that have an agreed-on meaning or meanings with a culture. Emblems can be still or in motion; for example, circling the index finger around at the side of your head says “He or she is crazy,” or rolling your hands repeatedly in front of you says “Move on.”

Head Movements and Posture

We group head movements and posture together because they are often both used to acknowledge others and communicate interest or attentiveness. In terms of head movements, a head nod is a universal sign of acknowledgement in cultures where the formal bow is no longer used as a greeting. In these cases, the head nod essentially serves as an abbreviated bow. An innate and universal head movement is the headshake back and forth to signal “no.” This nonverbal signal begins at birth, even before a baby has the ability to know that it has a corresponding meaning. Babies shake their head from side to side to reject their mother’s breast and later shake their head to reject attempts to spoon-feed (Pease & Pease, 2004). This biologically based movement then sticks with us to be a recognizable signal for “no.” We also move our head to indicate interest. For example, a head up typically indicates an engaged or neutral attitude, a head tilt indicates interest and is an innate submission gesture that exposes the neck and subconsciously makes people feel more trusting of us, and a head down signals a negative or aggressive attitude (Pease & Pease, 2004).

There are four general human postures: standing, sitting, squatting, and lying down (Hargie, 2011). Within each of these postures, there are many variations, and when combined with particular gestures or other nonverbal cues they can express many different meanings. Most of our communication occurs while we are standing or sitting. One interesting standing posture involves putting our hands on our hips and is a nonverbal cue that we use subconsciously to make us look bigger and show assertiveness. When the elbows are pointed out, this prevents others from getting past us as easily and is a sign of attempted dominance or a gesture that says we are ready for action. In terms of sitting, leaning back shows informality and indifference, straddling a chair is a sign of dominance (but also some insecurity because the person is protecting the vulnerable front part of his or her body), and leaning forward shows interest and attentiveness (Pease & Pease, 2004).

Eye Contact

We also communicate through eye behaviors, primarily eye contact (Glaeser & Paulus, 2015). While eye behaviors are often studied under the category of kinesics, they have their own branch of nonverbal studies called oculesics , which comes from the Latin word oculus , meaning “eye.” The face and eyes are the main point of focus during communication, and along with our ears, our eyes take in most of the communicative information around us. The saying “The eyes are the window to the soul” is actually accurate in terms of where people typically think others are “located,” which is right behind the eyes (Andersen, 1999). Certain eye behaviors have become tied to personality traits or emotional states, as illustrated in phrases like “hungry eyes,” “evil eyes,” and “bedroom eyes.”

Aside from regulating conversations, eye contact is also used to monitor interaction by taking in feedback and other nonverbal cues and to send information. Our eyes bring in the visual information we need to interpret people’s movements, gestures, and eye contact. A speaker can use his or her eye contact to determine if an audience is engaged, confused, or bored and then adapt his or her message accordingly. Our eyes also send information to others. People know not to interrupt when we are in deep thought because we naturally look away from others when we are processing information.

Making eye contact with others also communicates that we are paying attention and are interested in what another person is saying.

Facial Expressions

Our faces are the most expressive part of our bodies. Think of how photos are often intended to capture a particular expression “in a flash” to preserve for later viewing. Even though a photo is a snapshot in time, we can still interpret much meaning from a human face caught in a moment of expression, and basic facial expressions are recognizable by humans all over the world. Much research has supported the universality of a core group of facial expressions: happiness, sadness, fear, anger, and disgust. The first four are especially identifiable across cultures (Andersen, 1999). However, the triggers for these expressions and the cultural and social norms that influence their displays are still culturally diverse.

Since you are likely giving speeches in this class, let’s learn about the role of the face in public speaking. Facial expressions help set the emotional tone for a speech. In order to set a positive tone before you start speaking, briefly look at the audience and smile to communicate friendliness, openness, and confidence. Facial expressions communicate a range of emotions. They can be used to infer personality traits and make judgments about a speaker’s credibility and competence. Facial expressions can communicate that a speaker is tired, excited, angry, confused, frustrated, sad, confident, smug, shy, or bored. Even if you are not bored, for example, a slack face with little animation may lead an audience to think that you are bored with your own speech, which is not likely to motivate them to be interested. So make sure your facial expressions are communicating an emotion, mood, or personality trait that you think your audience will view favorably, and that will help you achieve your speech goals.

Think of how touch has the power to comfort someone in moment of sorrow when words alone cannot. This positive power of touch is countered by the potential for touch to be threatening because of its connection to sex and violence. To learn about the power of touch, we turn to haptics , which refers to the study of communication by touch (Hannaford & Okamura, 2016). We probably get more explicit advice and instruction on how to use touch than any other form of nonverbal communication. A lack of nonverbal communication competence related to touch could have negative interpersonal consequences; for example, if we do not follow the advice we have been given about the importance of a firm handshake, a person might make negative judgments about our confidence or credibility. A lack of competence could have more dire negative consequences, including legal punishment, if we touch someone inappropriately (intentionally or unintentionally).

Touch is necessary for human social development, and it can be welcoming, threatening, or persuasive. Research projects have found that students evaluated a library and its staff more favorably if the librarian briefly touched the patron while returning his or her library card, that female restaurant servers received larger tips when they touched patrons, and that people were more likely to sign a petition when the petitioner touched them during their interaction (Andersen, 1999). Conversely, casual touching can be interpreted as demeaning or sexist, especially when crossing genders, generations or cultures.

We learned earlier that paralanguage refers to the vocalized but nonverbal parts of a message. Vocalics is the study of paralanguage, which includes the vocal qualities that go along with verbal messages, such as pitch, volume, rate, vocal quality, and verbal fillers (Andersen, 1999).

Pitch helps convey meaning, regulate conversational flow, and communicate the intensity of a message. Even babies recognize a sentence with a higher pitched ending as a question. We also learn that greetings have a rising emphasis and farewells have falling emphasis. Of course, no one ever tells us these things explicitly; we learn them through observation and practice. We do not notice some more subtle and/or complex patterns of paralanguage involving pitch until we are older. Children, for example, have a difficult time perceiving sarcasm, which is usually conveyed through paralinguistic characteristics like pitch and tone rather than the actual words being spoken. Adults with lower than average intelligence and children have difficulty reading sarcasm in another person’s voice and instead may interpret literally what they say (Andersen, 1999).

Paralanguage provides important context for the verbal content of speech. For example, volume helps communicate intensity. A louder voice is usually thought of as more intense, although a soft voice combined with a certain tone and facial expression can be just as intense. We typically adjust our volume based on our setting, the distance between people, and the relationship. In our age of computer-mediated communication, TYPING IN ALL CAPS is equated with yelling. A voice at a low volume or a whisper can be very appropriate when sending a covert message or flirting with a romantic partner, but it would not enhance a person’s credibility if used during a professional presentation.

Speaking rate refers to how fast or slow a person speaks and can lead others to form impressions about our emotional state, credibility, and intelligence and is situated within cultures. As with volume, variations in speaking rate can interfere with the ability of others to receive and understand verbal messages. A slow speaker could bore others and lead their attention to wander. A fast speaker may be difficult to follow, and the fast delivery can actually distract from the message. Speaking a little faster than the normal 120–150 words a minute, however, can be beneficial, as people tend to find speakers whose rate is above average more credible and intelligent (Buller & Burgoon, 1986). When speaking at a faster-than-normal rate, it is important that a speaker also clearly articulate and pronounce his or her words. The following is a review of the various communicative functions of vocalics:

Repetition. Vocalic cues reinforce other verbal and nonverbal cues (e.g., saying, “I’m not sure” with an uncertain tone).
Complementing. Vocalic cues elaborate on or modify verbal and nonverbal meaning (e.g., the pitch and volume used to say “I love sweet potatoes” would add context to the meaning of the sentence, such as the degree to which the person loves sweet potatoes or the use of sarcasm).
Accenting. Vocalic cues allow us to emphasize particular parts of a message, which helps determine meaning (e.g., “ She is my friend,” or “She is my friend,” or “She is my friend ”).
Substituting. Vocalic cues can take the place of other verbal or nonverbal cues (e.g., saying, “uh huh” instead of “I am listening and understand what you’re saying”).
Regulating. Vocalic cues help regulate the flow of conversations (e.g., falling pitch and slowing rate of speaking usually indicate the end of a speaking turn).
Contradicting. Vocalic cues may contradict other verbal or nonverbal signals (e.g., a person could say, “I’m fine” in a quick, short tone that indicates otherwise).

Proxemics refers to the study of how space and distance influence communication (Hall, 1968). We only need look at the ways in which space shows up in common metaphors to see that space, communication, and relationships are closely related. For example, when we are content with and attracted to someone, we say we are “close” to him or her. When we lose connection with someone, we may say he or she is “distant.” In general, space influences how people communicate and behave.

Proxemic Distances

We all have varying definitions of what our “personal space” is, and these definitions are contextual and depend on the situation and the relationship (Hall, 1968). Although our bubbles are invisible, people are socialized into the norms of personal space within their cultural group. Scholars have identified four zones for Americans.

Public Space

Public space starts about twelve feet from a person and extends out from there. It is formal and not intimate (Hall, 1968). This is the least personal of the four zones. It would typically be used when a person is engaging in a formal speech and is removed from the audience to allow the audience to see or when a high profile or powerful person like a celebrity or executive maintains such a distance as a sign of power or for safety and security reasons.

Social Space

Communication that occurs in the social zone, which is four to twelve feet away from our body, is typically in the context of a professional or casual interaction, but not intimate or public (Hall, 1968). This distance is preferred in many professional settings because it reduces the suspicion of any impropriety. The expression “keep someone at an arm’s length” means that someone is kept out of the personal space and kept in the social/professional space. If two people held up their arms and stood so just the tips of their fingers were touching, they would be around four feet away from each other, which is perceived as a safe distance because the possibility for intentional or unintentional touching does not exist. It is also possible to have people in the outer portion of our social zone but not feel obligated to interact with them, but when people come much closer than six feet to us then we often feel obligated to acknowledge their presence.

Personal Space

Personal and intimate zones refer to the space that starts at our physical body and extends four feet (Hall, 1968).These zones are reserved for friends, close acquaintances, and significant others. Much of our communication occurs in the personal zone, which is what we typically think of as our “personal space bubble” and extends from 1.5 feet to 4 feet away from our body. Even though we are getting closer to the physical body of another person, we may use verbal communication at this point to signal that our presence in this zone is friendly and not intimate. Even people who know each other could be uncomfortable spending too much time in this zone unnecessarily.

Intimate Space

As we breach the invisible line that is 1.5 feet from our body, we enter the intimate zone, which is reserved for only the closest friends, family, and romantic/intimate partners (Hall, 1968). It is impossible to ignore completely people when they are in this space, even if we are trying to pretend that we are ignoring them. A breach of this space can be comforting in some contexts and annoying or frightening in others. We need regular human contact that is not just verbal but also physical. We have already discussed the importance of touch in nonverbal communication, and in order for that much-needed touch to occur, people have to enter our intimate space.

So what happens when our space is violated? Although these zones are well established in research for personal space preferences of Americans, individuals vary in terms of their reactions to people entering certain zones, and determining what constitutes a “violation” of space is subjective and contextual. For example, another person’s presence in our social or public zones does not typically arouse suspicion or negative physical or communicative reactions, but it could in some situations or with certain people. However, many situations lead to our personal and intimate space being breached by others against our will, and these breaches are more likely to be upsetting, even when they are expected.

We have all had to get into a crowded elevator or wait in a long line. In such situations, we may rely on some verbal communication to reduce immediacy and indicate that we are not interested in closeness and are aware that a breach has occurred. People make comments about the crowd, saying, “We’re really packed in here like sardines,” or use humor to indicate that they are pleasant and well-adjusted and uncomfortable with the breach like any “normal” person would be. Interestingly, as we will learn in our discussion of territoriality, we do not often use verbal communication to defend our personal space during regular interactions. Instead, we rely on nonverbal communication (like moving, crossing our arms, or avoiding eye contact) to deal with breaches of space.

Chronemics refers to the study of how time affects communication. Personal time refers to the ways in which individuals experience time (Bruneau, 2011). The way we experience time varies based on our mood, our interest level, and other factors. Think about how quickly time passes when you are interested in and therefore engaged in something. People with past-time orientations may want to reminisce about the past, reunite with old friends, and put considerable time into preserving memories and keepsakes in scrapbooks and photo albums. People with future-time orientations may spend the same amount of time making career and personal plans, writing out to-do lists, or researching future vacations, potential retirement spots, or what book they are going to read next.

Physical time refers to the fixed cycles of days, years, and seasons. Physical time, especially seasons, can affect our mood and psychological states. Some people experience seasonal affective disorder that leads them to experience emotional distress and anxiety during the changes of seasons, primarily from warm and bright to dark and cold (summer to fall and winter).

Cultural time refers to how large groups of people view time. Polychronic people do not view time as a linear progression that needs to be divided into small units and scheduled in advance. Polychronic people keep schedules that are more flexible and may engage in several activities at once. Monochronic people tend to schedule their time more rigidly and do one thing at a time. A polychronic or monochronic orientation to time influences our social realities and how we interact with others.

Additionally, the way we use time depends in some ways on our status. For example, doctors can make their patients wait for extended periods of time, and executives and celebrities may run consistently behind schedule, making others wait for them. Promptness and the amount of time that is socially acceptable for lateness and waiting varies among individuals and contexts. Chronemics also covers the amount of time we spend talking. We have already learned that conversational turns and turn-taking patterns are influenced by social norms and help our conversations progress. We all know how annoying it can be when a person dominates a conversation or when we cannot get a person to contribute anything.

Personal Presentation and Environment

Personal presentation involves two components: our physical characteristics and the artifacts with which we adorn and surround ourselves. Physical characteristics include body shape, height, weight, attractiveness, and other physical features of our bodies. We do not have as much control over how these nonverbal cues are encoded as we do with many other aspects of nonverbal communication. Although ideals of attractiveness vary among cultures and individuals, research consistently indicates that people who are deemed attractive based on physical characteristics have distinct advantages in many aspects of life. This fact, along with media images that project often unrealistic ideals of beauty, have contributed to booming health and beauty, dieting, gym, and plastic surgery industries.

Have you ever tried to change your “look?” An example might be big changes in how you present yourself in terms of clothing and accessories. A younger version of you in high school might embrace wearing clothes from the local thrift store daily. Of course, most of them were older clothes, so you were going for a “retro” look, which that might suit you at that age. Later in the last years of college, you might as if you are entering a new stage of adulthood, so you might start wearing business-casual clothes to school every day, embracing the “dress for the job you want” philosophy. In both cases, these changes will definitely affect how others perceived you Television programs like What Not to Wear seek to show the power of wardrobe and personal style changes in how people communicate with others.

4.4 Nonverbal Communication Competence

As we age, we internalize social and cultural norms related to sending (encoding) and interpreting (decoding) nonverbal communication. In terms of sending, the tendency of children to send unmonitored nonverbal signals reduces as we get older and begin to monitor and perhaps censor or mask them (Andersen, 1999). Likewise, as we become communicators that are more experienced we tend to think that we become better at interpreting nonverbal messages. In this section, we will discuss some strategies for effectively encoding and decoding nonverbal messages. As we have already learned, we receive little, if any, official instruction in nonverbal communication, but you can think of this chapter as a training manual to help improve your own nonverbal communication competence. As with all aspects of communication, improving your nonverbal communication takes commitment and continued effort.

Guidelines for Sending Nonverbal Messages

First impressions matter. Nonverbal cues account for much of the content from which we form initial impressions, so it is important to know that people make judgments about our identities and skills after only brief exposure. Our competence regarding and awareness of nonverbal communication can help determine how an interaction will proceed and, in fact, whether it will take place at all. People who are skilled at encoding nonverbal messages are more favorably evaluated after initial encounters. This is likely due to the fact that people who are more nonverbally expressive are also more attention getting and engaging and make people feel more welcome and warm due to increased immediacy behaviors, all of which enhance perceptions of charisma.

Nonverbal Communication is Multichannel

Be aware of the multichannel nature of nonverbal communication. We rarely send a nonverbal message in isolation. For example, a posture may be combined with a touch or eye behavior to create what is called a nonverbal cluster (Pease & Pease, 2004). Nonverbal congruence refers to consistency among different nonverbal expressions within a cluster. Congruent nonverbal communication is more credible and effective than ambiguous or conflicting nonverbal cues. Even though you may intend for your nonverbal messages to be congruent, they could still be decoded in a way that does not match up with your intent, especially since nonverbal expressions vary in terms of their degree of conscious encoding. In this sense, the multichannel nature of nonverbal communication creates the potential of both increased credibility and increased ambiguity.

Nonverbal Communication Affects Our Interactions

Nonverbal communication affects our own and others’ behaviors and communication. Changing our nonverbal signals can affect our thoughts and emotions. Knowing this allows us to have more control over the trajectory of our communication, possibly allowing us to intervene in a negative cycle. You might start to exhibit nonverbal clusters that signal frustration when you are waiting in line to get your driver’s license renewed and the man in front of you does not have his materials organized and is asking unnecessary questions.

You might cross your arms, a closing-off gesture, and combine that with wrapping your fingers tightly around one bicep and occasionally squeezing, which is a self-touch adaptor that results from anxiety and stress. The longer you stand like that, the more frustrated and defensive you will become, because that nonverbal cluster reinforces and heightens your feelings. Increased awareness about these cycles can help you make conscious moves to change your nonverbal communication and, subsequently, your cognitive and emotional states (McKay, Davis, & Fanning, 1995).

Nonverbal Communication Regulates Conversations

The ability to encode appropriate turn-taking signals can help ensure that we can hold the floor when needed in a conversation or work our way into a conversation smoothly, without inappropriately interrupting someone or otherwise being seen as rude. People with nonverbal encoding competence are typically more “in control” of conversations. This regulating function can be useful in initial encounters when we are trying to learn more about another person and in situations where status differentials are present or compliance gaining or dominance are goals.

Even though verbal communication is most often used to interrupt another person, interruptions are still studied as a part of chronemics because it interferes with another person’s talk time. Instead of interrupting, you can use nonverbal signals like leaning in, increasing your eye contact, or using a brief gesture like subtly raising one hand or the index finger to signal to another person that you would like to take the floor.

Nonverbal Communication Relates to Listening

Part of being a good listener involves nonverbal-encoding competence, as nonverbal feedback in the form of head nods, eye contact, and posture can signal that a listener is paying attention and the speaker’s message is received and understood. Active listening, for example, combines good cognitive listening practices with outwardly visible cues that signal to others that we are listening. Listeners are expected to make more eye contact with the speaker than the speaker makes with them, so it is important to “listen with your eyes” by maintaining eye contact, which signals attentiveness. Listeners should also avoid distracting movements in the form of self, other, and object adaptors. Being a higher self-monitor can help you catch nonverbal signals that might signal that you are not listening, at which point you could consciously switch to more active listening signals.

Nonverbal Communication Relates to Impression Management

The nonverbal messages we encode also help us express our identities and play into impression management. Being able to control nonverbal expressions and competently encode them allows us to better manage our persona and project a desired self to others—for example, a self that is perceived as competent, socially attractive, and engaging. Being nonverbally expressive during initial interactions usually leads to impressions that are more favorable. So smiling, keeping an attentive posture, and offering a solid handshake help communicate confidence and enthusiasm that can be useful on a first date, during a job interview, when visiting family for the holidays, or when running into an acquaintance at the grocery store.

Guidelines for Interpreting Nonverbal Messages

We learn to decode or interpret nonverbal messages through practice and by internalizing social norms. Following the suggestions to become a better encoder of nonverbal communication will lead to better decoding competence through increased awareness. Since nonverbal communication is more ambiguous than verbal communication, we have to learn to interpret these cues as clusters within contexts. My favorite way to increase my knowledge about nonverbal communication is to engage in people watching. Just by consciously taking in the variety of nonverbal signals around us, we can build our awareness and occasionally be entertained. Skilled decoders of nonverbal messages are said to have nonverbal sensitivity, which, very similarly to skilled encoders, leads them to have larger social networks, be more popular, and exhibit less social anxiety (Riggio, 1992).

Recognize that Certain Nonverbal Signals are Related

The first guideline for decoding nonverbal signals is to recognize that certain nonverbal signals are related. Nonverbal rulebooks are not effective because they typically view a nonverbal signal in isolation, similar to how dictionaries separately list denotative definitions of words. To get a more nuanced understanding of the meaning behind nonverbal cues, we can look at them as progressive or layered. For example, people engaging in negative critical evaluation of a speaker may cross their legs, cross one arm over their stomach, and put the other arm up so the index finger is resting close to the eye while the chin rests on the thumb (Pease & Pease, 2004). A person would not likely perform all those signals simultaneously. Instead, he or she would likely start with one and then layer more cues on as the feelings intensified. If we notice that a person is starting to build related signals like the ones above onto one another, we might be able to intervene in the negative reaction that is building. Of course, as nonverbal cues are layered on, they may contradict other signals, in which case we can turn to context clues to aid our interpretation.

Read Nonverbal Cues in Context

We can gain insight into how to interpret nonverbal cues through personal contexts. People have idiosyncratic nonverbal behaviors, which create an individual context that varies with each person. Even though we generally fit into certain social and cultural patterns, some people deviate from those norms. For example, some cultures tend toward less touching and greater interpersonal distances during interactions. The United States falls into this general category, but there are people who were socialized into these norms who as individuals deviate from them and touch more and stand closer to others while conversing. As the idiosyncratic communicator inches toward his or her conversational partner, the partner may inch back to reestablish the interpersonal distance norm. Such deviations may lead people to misinterpret sexual or romantic interest or feel uncomfortable. While these actions could indicate such interest, they could also be idiosyncratic. As this example shows, these individual differences can increase the ambiguity of nonverbal communication, but when observed over a period of time, they can actually help us generate meaning.

Try to compare observed nonverbal cues to a person’s typical or baseline nonverbal behavior to help avoid misinterpretation. In some instances, it is impossible to know what sorts of individual nonverbal behaviors or idiosyncrasies people have because there is not a relational history. In such cases, we have to turn to our knowledge about specific types of nonverbal communication or draw from more general contextual knowledge.

Figure 4.1: Consider a wink as an example of ambiguous, nonverbal communication. Jonathan Safa. 2018. Unsplash license . https://unsplash.com/photos/ITH_dM_RQLk

Figure 4.2: Hand gestures are helpful in reinforcing verbal communication. Johan Godínez. 2020. Unsplash license . https://unsplash.com/photos/dDYRYivNzbI

Figure 4.3: The “OK” hand gesture is an example of an emblem. Elena Rabkina. 2020. Unsplash license . https://unsplash.com/photos/QH8aF3B0gYQ

Figure 4.4: Public space. Kindred Grey. 2022. CC BY 4.0 . Includes Person by mungang kim from NounProject and Person by mungang kim from NounProject (both NounProject license ).

Figure 4.5: Social space. Kindred Grey. 2022. CC BY 4.0 . Includes Person by mungang kim from NounProject and Person by mungang kim from NounProject (both NounProject license ).

Figure 4.6: Personal space. Kindred Grey. 2022. CC BY 4.0 . Includes Person by mungang kim from NounProject and Person by mungang kim from NounProject (both NounProject license ).

Figure 4.7: Intimate space. Kindred Grey. 2022. CC BY 4.0 . Includes Person by mungang kim from NounProject and Person by mungang kim from NounProject (both NounProject license ).

Section 4.1 and 4.2

Andersen, P. A. (1999). Nonverbal communication: Forms and functions . Mayfield.

Andersen, P. A., & Andersen, J. F. (2005). Measures of perceived nonverbal immediacy. In V. Manusov (Ed.), The sourcebook of nonverbal measures: Going beyond words (pp. 113-126). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Burgoon, J. K., Birk, T., & Pfau, M. (1990). Nonverbal behaviors, persuasion, and credibility. Human communication research , 17 (1), 140-169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1990.tb00229.x

Canfield, A. (2002). Body, identity and interaction: Interpreting nonverbal communication . Retrieved December 29, 2021 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED473237.pdf

Comadena, M. E., Hunt, S. K., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). The effects of teacher clarity, nonverbal immediacy, and caring on student motivation, affective and cognitive learning. Communication Research Reports, 24 (3), 241-248. https//doi.org/10.1080/08824090701446617

Depaulo, B. M., & Friedman, H. S. (1998). Nonverbal communication. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 3–40). McGraw-Hill.

Hargie, O. (2011). Skilled interpersonal interaction: Research, theory, and practice . Routledge.

Krauss, R. M., Chen, Y., & Chawla, P. (1996). Nonverbal behavior and nonverbal communication: What do conversational hand gestures tell us? Advances in experimental social psychology , 28 , 389-450. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60241-5

Neill, S. (2017). Classroom nonverbal communication . Routledge.

Oster, H., Hegley, D., & Nagel, L. (1992). Adult judgments and fine-grained analysis of infant facial expressions: Testing the validity of a priori coding formulas. Developmental Psychology, 28 (6), 1115–1131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.6.1115

Porter, S., ten Brinke, L. & Wallace, B. (2012). Secrets and lies: Involuntary leakage in deceptive facial expressions as a function of emotional intensity. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36 (1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-011-0120-7

Qiang, K. A. N. G. (2013). Paralanguage. Canadian Social Science , 9 (6), 222-226. https://doi.org/10.3968/j.css.1923669720130906.3832

Riggio, R. E. (1992). Social interaction skills and nonverbal behavior. In R. S. Feldman (Ed.), Applications of nonverbal behavioral theories and research (pp. 3–30). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Vrij, A., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2019). Reading lies: Nonverbal communication and deception. Annual review of psychology , 70 (1), 295-317. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103135

Section 4.3

Bruneau, T. (2011). Chronemics and the verbal-nonverbal interface. In The relationship of verbal and nonverbal communication (pp. 101-118). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110813098.101

Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1986). The effects of vocalics and nonverbal sensitivity on compliance. Human Communication Research, 13 (1), 126–44.

Hall, E. T. (1968). Proxemics. Current Anthropology, 9 (2), 83–95.

Glaeser, G., & Paulus, H. F. (2015). The language of our eyes. In The evolution of the eye (pp. 183-209). Springer, Cham.

Hannaford, B., & Okamura, A. M. (2016). Haptics. In Springer handbook of robotics (pp. 1063-1084). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32552-1_42

Harrigan, J. A. (2005). Proxemics, kinesics, and gaze. In J. A. Harrigan, R. Rosenthal, & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research (pp. 137–198). Oxford University Press.

Pease, A., & Pease, B. (2004). The definitive book of body language . Bantam.

Section 4.4

McKay, M., Davis, M., & Fanning, P. (1995). Messages: Communication skills book (2nd ed.). New Harbinger Publications.

A process of generating meaning using behavior other than words

Vocalized but not verbal part of a spoken message, such as speaking rate, volume, and pitch

Verbal and nonverbal behaviors that lessen real or perceived physical and psychological distance between communicators and include things like smiling, nodding, making eye-contact, and occasionally engaging in social, polite, or professional touch

The objects and possessions that surround us

Touching behaviors and movements that indicate internal states typically related to arousal or anxiety

Gestures that have a specific agreed-on meaning within a cultural context

Study of eye behaviors and movements in nonverbal communication

Refers to the study of communication by touch

The study of paralanguage

The study of how space and distance influence communication

The study of how time affects communication

Communication in the Real World Copyright © by Faculty members in the School of Communication Studies, James Madison University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Nonverbal behaviour as communication: Approaches, issues, and research

DOI link for Nonverbal behaviour as communication: Approaches, issues, and research

Click here to navigate to parent product.

This chapter provides the surveys of the large cross-disciplinary literature on nonverbal communication. Research that has revealed relationships between nonverbal decoding and interpersonal social skills among adults and encoding skills and social competence among adolescents point to the importance of continued investigations of these aspects of individual performance. Sigmund Freud's approach to the investigation of nonverbal behaviour as communication appears to have taken the analogies of the riddle or perhaps the obscure text that can be made meaningful by the application of accepted interpretive principles. The chapter stresses that nonverbal behaviour, as a communication skill, is usefully understood when discussed in role- and setting-defined contexts. The skill is based upon evidence picked up directly or indirectly from the environment, and it is used for the attempted achievement of whatever issue may be required at the time of the performance. The chapter discusses themes and techniques for analysis, and emphasises the special features of one particular context, that of international politics.

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Taylor & Francis Online
Taylor & Francis Group
Students/Researchers
Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

LibGuides
A-Z List
Help

Nonverbal Communication

Nonverbal Communications
Reference & Background
Communications Research
Popular Issues Research
APA Citation & Formatting

Simple Citing

how to write a research paper on nonverbal communication

Citations & Plagiarism by FIU Librarian Last Updated Aug 14, 2024 27806 views this year
Citation Managers by FIU Librarian Last Updated Aug 14, 2024 1393 views this year
Art Citation Guide by Melissa Del Castillo Last Updated Jun 17, 2024 4892 views this year
APA 7th Edition

APA (American Psychological Association) style is generally used in the social sciences. As the publishing standard, APA style also provides guidelines for paper formatting.

APA 7th Edition Use this link for APA tips, examples by format, information on in-text citations & more!
OWL: APA Sample Paper Use this as a model to create your APA paper. This template has detailed instructions on how to format in MS Word.

apa checks & balances

Great tools to check your citations.

Instruct: Citations

Direct Links

This module covers the importance of academic integrity and the basics of citing sources in different styles.

<< Previous: Popular Issues Research
Next: Need Help? >>
Last Updated: Oct 18, 2023 8:33 AM
URL: https://library.fiu.edu/nonverbal

Information

Fiu libraries floorplans, green library, modesto a. maidique campus.

Floor		Resources
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Eight

Hubert Library, Biscayne Bay Campus

Floor		Resources
One
Two
Three

Directions: Green Library, MMC

Directions: Hubert Library, BBC

Research Paper Writing Help

Get a clear information on how to write the best paper.

Research Paper Topics On Non-Verbal Communication

Paper Format

Before we get on to the best topics for you to base your paper on, it is a good idea to discuss the format of your paper. Every school has their own specific requirements on the font and font size that students should use in their writing. You should consult your teacher if you are unsure about this.

In terms of the structure, the paper should follow a structure such as this one:

Introduction: A brief overview of your paper. You should also ensure to give some background context in this paragraph, so the reader is more informed about the topic they will be reading about.
Main body: This is where you present your main argument, backed with good sources.
Conclusion: This concludes your paper, and in this paragraph you need give a closing statement about your research and why it sufficiently proves your argument.

Another aspect of this type of paper writing that many students ignore is the fact that opposing viewpoints need to also be analyzed. If you fail to do this, then the likelihood of you attaining a high grade for your work are drastically lowered.

When choosing a topic for your non-verbal communication paper, it is best to ensure that it is in an area that you enjoyed learning about in your course. If not for this, then it will be reflected in your writing and the amount of effort you put into your work. The following are a good list of topics to write your paper about:

Influences of non-verbal communication
Effects of non-verbal communication on the receiver
How is non-verbal communication associate with movement
Image projected through non-verbal communication
How does non-verbal cues show attraction?
Paralanguage in everyday use
How is technology changing non-verbal communication?
Gender differences in non-verbal communication
The power of non-verbal communication in making a sale
No-verbal communication in the workplace

Of course, these are some of the many topics you could potentially write about. But these are all interesting and unique topics that your teacher will not frequently see.

Remember that your paper format needs to strictly follow your university’s guidelines, and the topic you write about should be in an area you are curious about. ThesisHelpers can help you manage any research paper.

Original Tricks

Get writing assistance
Writing a paper in 24 hours

Writing Help

Best thesis writing service
My essay writing

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Sage Choice
PMC10623623

Four Misconceptions About Nonverbal Communication

Miles l. patterson.

1 Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri–St. Louis

Alan J. Fridlund

2 Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara

Carlos Crivelli

3 School of Applied Social Sciences, De Montfort University

Research and theory in nonverbal communication have made great advances toward understanding the patterns and functions of nonverbal behavior in social settings. Progress has been hindered, we argue, by presumptions about nonverbal behavior that follow from both received wisdom and faulty evidence. In this article, we document four persistent misconceptions about nonverbal communication—namely, that people communicate using decodable body language; that they have a stable personal space by which they regulate contact with others; that they express emotion using universal, evolved, iconic, categorical facial expressions; and that they can deceive and detect deception, using dependable telltale clues. We show how these misconceptions permeate research as well as the practices of popular behavior experts, with consequences that extend from intimate relationships to the boardroom and courtroom and even to the arena of international security. Notwithstanding these misconceptions, existing frameworks of nonverbal communication are being challenged by more comprehensive systems approaches and by virtual technologies that ambiguate the roles and identities of interactants and the contexts of interaction.

Philosophers and scientists have long speculated about the meaning and impact of nonverbal behavior (for a review, see Knapp, 2006 ). In literature going back to Homer, descriptions of characters’ appearance and behavior were central for understanding individuals and their interactions. It has been 150 years since Darwin’s (1872) work, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals , awakened scientific interest in nonverbal behavior, yet systematic research on the topic took nearly a century, with rapid growth beginning in the 1950s and 1960s. Helping to launch research on nonverbal communication (NVC) were publications in anthropology ( Birdwhistell, 1952 , 1970 ; E. T. Hall, 1959 , 1966 ), sociology ( Goffman, 1963 , 1971 ), and psychology ( Ekman, 1965 ; Sommer, 1961 , 1969 ). Since those early works the field has mushroomed, and there are now hundreds of scholarly books and tens of thousands of journal articles on various aspects of NVC. In the last 20 years alone, three comprehensive handbooks ( J. A. Hall & Knapp, 2013 ; Manusov & Patterson, 2006 ; Matsumoto et al., 2016 ) have provided in-depth reviews of the field.

Decades of research have yielded a wealth of data and theorizing regarding the forms and functions of NVC. Not all information is equal, though, and as in all science, the signal-to-noise ratio is imperfect. Some of what are considered abiding truths about NVC have endured despite disconfirming evidence and trenchant criticism. These “truths” have taken on mythlike status as a kind of received wisdom impervious to evidence, and so they endure as pseudoscience (e.g., see Denault et al., 2020 , for a critique of pseudoscientific practices in the fields of security and jurisprudence; and see Krumhuber & Kappas, 2022 , on the supposed authenticity of Duchenne smiles). Barrett (2019) , writing broadly about psychology, used economist Paul Krugman’s term zombie ideas to describe these walking dead of the psychological landscape, notions that survive more by inertia than merit. Although they may preferentially plague the general public, they have propagated to businesses, artificial intelligence start-ups, national security agencies, public-safety officials, basic science researchers, and university lecturers worldwide.

The goal of this article is to examine critically what we consider four central misconceptions about NVC—namely, that people communicate using body language; that they have a stable personal space; that they use universal, evolved, iconic, categorical facial displays to express underlying emotions; and that they give off, and can detect, dependable telltale clues to deception.

We suggest, with all compassion, that these zombie ideas should be put out of their misery. In doing so, however, we also recognize more broadly the progress made in establishing NVC research on firm scientific ground. This is manifested in important findings on topics such as social skills, person memory, first impressions, interpersonal influence, bias, robotics, empathy, and psychopathology, to name a few ( Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992 ; Esposito & Jain, 2016 ; Knapp et al., 2012 ; Manusov & Patterson, 2006 ; Philippot et al., 2003 ; Sternberg & Kostić, 2020 ). We focus on these four misconceptions in order to acquaint readers outside the area of study, be they researchers, policymakers, students, or the general public, with what is known and what is either unknown or unsupported. We hope as well that this article will be a useful guide for investigators who may wish to enter the area and advance current knowledge. In doing so, we suggest a systems approach to NVC that avoids these misconceptions and grounds research in the nuances of interpersonal interactions as they occur in everyday life, in diverse societies, and in the virtual landscape of the metaverse.

Misconception No. 1: We Communicate Using Body Language

Public fascination with body language began shortly after the publication of Julius Fast’s (1970) popular book of the same name. In general, body language refers to one or more nonverbal behaviors (e.g., distance, posture, gaze, touch, facial expression) that presumably signaled something about individuals’ personality traits, relationships, motives, momentary states, and ultimately their veracity. It was frequently assumed that people’s body language, though indirect, conveyed more truth about them than their words did. By 1980, commentators, consultants, and media experts were routinely noting the body language of politicians, Hollywood celebrities, and others prominent in media. Televised sports announcers began commenting on players’ moods and attitudes during the games, with self-assured pronouncements that “you can see it in their body language.”

The body-language industry has proliferated with the recent explosion of social media. Countless popular books, seminars, and videos now link astuteness about body language to love, wealth, and fame. Media consultants not only write books but routinely offer training in how people can attain winning body language on camera, whether in TV interviews or on YouTube. Sales training seminars include nonverbal behavior as part of “perfecting your pitch” and “upselling the customer.” Relationship coaches have clients practice smiling, tone of voice, and posture to impress dating partners. Romantic partners are encouraged to learn each other’s “love language” ( Chapman, 1992 ). Parents are taught how to use their nonverbal behavior to discipline their children with firmness but not cruelty. And, as we review later, the U.S. Transportation Security Agency (TSA) trains many of its airport agents to spot certain body movements on the theory that such movements can predict a possible act of terrorism.

Apart from whether these attempts at marketing and deploying body-language training have merit, we must first ask whether the term “body language” itself has merit. Like language, nonverbal behaviors inform and influence others. As we shall see, however, casting nonverbal behaviors as instances of a body language is misleading, because they lack some key features of formal languages: (a) propositionality, (b) a vocabulary, and (c) syntax. 1 When we detail these features, it becomes clear how nonverbal behaviors are different. 2

Some key features of formal language versus body language

First, in contrast to nonverbal behavior, formal language is propositional, so it can transmit content that includes truth claims (i.e., self-standing statements that admit to verification). For example, in oral and written language, one can make assertions about various states of affairs that can be proven true or false (e.g., you have green eyes and brown hair, it is sunny outside, and today is your birthday). But what can one do with most nonverbal behaviors (e.g., you are on the receiving end of a smile, along with prolonged gaze, close approach, and physical contact)? We can ask what led to these behaviors and speculate upon what might happen next, but all the rest is guesswork. “I think they must really like me” might be accurate in a romantic context, but not in a boxing ring or on a used-car lot. Verifying inferences takes other evidence (see Lycan, 2019 ).

Next, in verbal language, words have fairly invariant meanings, and the set of vocabulary words within any culture’s language constitutes that language’s lexicon. The English word dog typically signifies domesticated mammals that walk on four legs and bark. 3 Often, nonverbal behaviors are not so easily interpretable. If we ask a friend about the weather outside and she scowls, her expression may mean that (a) it is lousy outside; (b) it is so lousy outside that it is ridiculous that we asked; (c) she has far more important things on her mind than the weather; or (d) she is still upset from the argument we had yesterday and the last thing she wants to do is talk to us, especially about the weather. Deciphering her scowl requires further information, which could come from her gaze direction, posture, body orientation, interpersonal distance, and the presence (or absence) of touch; any of these, or a combination, might do the trick, but maybe not. Thus, compared with language, there is imprecision in nonverbal behavior because it lacks a vocabulary.

NVC also lacks yet another basic property of formal languages— syntax . Languages have rules about how words should be assembled to make them mean things. Order and context are crucial. For instance, “the bear killed the man” differs from “the man killed the bear,” a difference the man is likely to notice. Context is also crucial. The meaning of “I do not know how to address that” depends on whether one is handling a criticism or working at a post office. Thus, the propositionality of language, along with the complexity afforded by vocabulary and syntax, all make language immensely precise, useful, flexible, and efficient.

Studies of cerebral hemispheric laterality and specialization using electroencephalography and neuroimaging also suggest a contrast between language and NVC. People engaged in verbal tasks tend to show increased overall activity in the left hemisphere, whereas people engaged in nonverbal tasks showing increased activity on the right ( Corballis, 2014 ). The same left-hemisphere predominance for spoken language appears to generalize to manual languages such as American Sign Language. Specifically, Broca’s area in the left frontal lobe looks especially active when people are speaking or signing, and Wernicke’s area at the left temporoparietal junction looks especially active when people are listening to speech or receiving sign language ( Hickok et al., 2001 ). 4 It seems from the neurology that the operative contrast is between language, whether spoken or unspoken, and nonlinguistic communication by nonverbal behavior.

The power of the situation

The body-language concept also neglects the critical role of the proximate physical environment in NVC. The immediate physical setting affects the give-and-take of NVC in both direct and indirect ways ( Oishi & Graham, 2010 ; Patterson, 2019 ; Patterson & Quadflieg, 2016 ). An obvious example of the direct influence of the setting is the design and arrangement of furniture. In an office setting, a common arrangement involves a visitor’s chair situated directly opposite and across the desk from the supervisor. The directly opposing arrangement, often with the supervisor’s chair higher than the visitor’s, signals greater power and dominance than an adjacent arrangement ( Burgoon & Dunbar, 2006 ). Of course, the arrangement of furniture is only one feature of the environment that affects the quality and course of NVC. Lighting, room color, wall art, desktop artifacts, ambient temperature, the presence or absence of windows, the acoustic environment, and scents can also affect moods and interaction patterns ( Patterson & Quadflieg, 2016 ). Despite the large variability of settings and all the potential combinations among their constituents, these behavior settings often provide a mnemonic function that cues and constrains the types of behaviors that individuals exhibit ( Rapoport, 1982 ). In sum, the power of the situation greatly defines the elements of the interaction and their interplay.

These various setting features are sometimes deliberately chosen or manipulated by users. In such cases, these features may suggest something about users’ personality, attitudes, and goals ( Gosling et al., 2008 ; Webb et al., 1966 ). In turn, astute visitors might use this feature information strategically to adapt their communication patterns to achieve their own interaction goals. In other cases, users may “inherit” a particular setting and simply adapt to its features. Of course, fixed-featured elements (e.g., the size of the room, the location of doors and hallways) are not easily manipulated after construction, but they are often designed to mitigate or to enable behaviors and modes of influence ( Altman & Chemers, 1980 ). For example, social norms among Trobriand Islanders may prevent commoners from building houses or sitting on verandas situated higher than their chief’s, as a way to preserve customs of rank and status ( Malinowski, 1922 ).

The indirect effects of the environment are evident before interaction commences. People rarely find themselves in a specific setting by accident; personal preferences, attitudes, abilities, and goals all affect their choices of particular environments. Nor does everyone have equal access to all settings. Despite the authors’ wishes to be rock stars, sports celebrities, and corporate CEOs, we still await the invitations and accolades. To put it succinctly, people select settings, and settings select people ( Barker, 1968 ; Wicker, 1979 ).

The combination of self- and setting selection also increases the likelihood that, within any given setting, interactants will be more homogeneous and less diverse. This increased homogeneity facilitates the efficiency of interactions and increases the probability of behavioral concordance and, sometimes, clear mimicry among partners ( Patterson, 2019 ). Furthermore, once in a particular setting, people’s behavioral options are constrained not only by the physical environment, but also by that setting’s social norms. In such circumstances, patterns of NVC owe more to the physical features and social norms of the behavior setting than to any supposed codes of body language.

With today’s technology, the features of settings no longer need to be physical. Zoom callers in their offices or kitchens routinely green-screen themselves in front of Hawaiian or Parisian backdrops, and TV anchors in comfy studios insert themselves electronically before centers of government and at global-conflict hot spots. Inhabitants of the metaverse navigate virtual worlds in which their appearances, social roles, and situational contexts are all fluid. Just as multilingual speakers code-switch, it is likely that many people will learn to “world-switch” in behavior, manner of self-presentation, and accommodation to the frangible settings features of multiple virtual worlds. Already, journals such as Metaverse Creativity , Electronic Imaging , and the Journal of Virtual Worlds Research are featuring articles that explore issues of identity and role in virtual worlds that possess synthetic features and synthetic physics, worlds in which people can fly and their bodies can freely merge, and in which the usual modes and mores of social conduct may not apply.

NVC elaborated

If NVC does not qualify as body language, what is it? Different definitions of NVC emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as research burgeoned ( MacKay, 1972 ; Watzlawick & Beavin, 1967 ; Wiener et al., 1972 ; for a review, see Patterson, 1983 ). Our approach here defines “nonverbal communication” as the sending or receiving of information (sometimes both) among interactants by virtue of their physical environment, appearance, and nonverbal behavior ( Patterson, 2011 ). NVC can be both complementary to language and apart from it, whether it transpires in person or via electronic mediation. Besides these core differences between NVC and language discussed earlier, there are three important contrasts in how the two function ( Patterson, 2011 ). First, whereas verbal language appears in utterances, NVC is always “on,” and can occur as long as there are cues from the current setting and the appearance and behavior of others. This can happen when people navigate their environments with no intention of interacting with anyone. People routinely communicate when they silently pass on a sidewalk, wait in line at a grocery store, or take a seat at a doctor’s office. These situations are what Goffman (1971) called “unfocused interactions,” in contrast to “focused interactions” that are organized around conversation. Second, in conversation, the speaker and listener roles usually alternate. In contrast, in nonverbal interactions, individuals can send and receive appearance and behavioral cues concurrently. Whether at a job interview, having coffee with a friend, or simply walking down the sidewalk, there is an ongoing reciprocal exchange of nonverbal cues ( Patterson, 1995 , 2019 ).

Finally, NVC often proceeds outside of awareness. The simple perception of a partner’s behavior is often sufficient to lead us to respond without realizing we are doing so. One conversation partner may lean forward and the other will lean back, only to have the two reverse positions a moment later. Both may be oblivious to their postural “dance” ( Wheeler & DeMarree, 2009 ). In social settings, people certainly can remind themselves to monitor how they are moving their faces, changing their tone of voice, or adjusting their posture, but this is usually awkward and unnecessary. They manage to issue the nonverbal behavior that fits their attitude and intentions, both in conversation and in silently sharing common spaces with others ( Patterson, 2008 ). Such nonverbal behavior can be lagged and reciprocal, as when people react to others’ comments or behavior. It can also be concurrent, as when people nod, flash their brows, or purse their lips at what the other is saying. Even “motor mimicry” (e.g., wincing at another’s injury) appears to be a dialogical act by which “I show how you feel” ( Bavelas, 2007 ; Bavelas et al., 1986 , 1988 ) and which can facilitate liking between partners ( Lakin, 2013 ). This concurrent sending and receiving in NVC makes for an efficient streamlining of social interactions.

Misconception No. 1: Conclusion

If “body language” were only a benign metaphor, the term would simply be misleading. As it is, what the term connotes is actually damaging. Designating NVC a language wrongly implies a relatively invariant rule book by which to decode specific appearance cues and behaviors. This errant assumption has fostered a multimillion-dollar body-language industry in books, seminars, videos, and other media, dedicated to revealing the hidden codes and subtle strategies that are promised to insure success in every aspect of social life. This snake oil may benefit some people by making them more comfortable and confident in social settings, just as placebos often help people feel better. Still, consumers should be wary of claims that they can purchase access to any secret language of the body.

None of this implies that the divinations of body-language commentators are always incorrect, but such claims are almost always oversimplified, evaluated in hindsight, and riddled with confirmation bias ( Nickerson, 1998 ). The meaning and impact of specific behavior patterns are contingent upon a number of factors, including the setting features, the characteristics of the individuals involved (e.g., culture, gender, personality, attitudes), and the particular goals of the individuals ( Crivelli & Fridlund, 2018 ; Patterson, 1983 , 2019 ; Russell, 2017 ). Indeed, the broad context for a particular nonverbal sequence is always pivotal in determining both its inferred meaning and its impact.

Misconception No. 2: People Have a Stable Personal Space

Everyone has experienced times when strangers, and sometimes friends and acquaintances, are just too close for comfort, leading us to draw back as they grow closer. These uncomfortable situations are often labeled violations of personal space , and it has been a topic of study for over a century. Simmel (1908) spoke of the “sociality of space,” declaring that there was a “geometry of social life.” In the 1920s, Bogardus developed his Social Distance Scale, believing that interpersonal distance reflected prejudice ( Bogardus, 1925 , 1926 ). Bogardus’s scale, with various revisions, was used widely in the study of racial and class prejudices and spawned a wave of applied social-distance research from the 1920s to the 1950s ( Ethington, 1997 ).

E. T. Hall (1966) coined the term proxemics for the study of how space was used by members of different societies (e.g., Germany, Japan, and the Middle East), and took ideas that had been sociometric and extended them to interpersonal communication. Hall’s “distance zones” were spaces in which interaction occurred, not spaces surrounding individuals. It was Robert Sommer, an early researcher on spatial behavior, who proposed that social interactions were regulated by a personal space, which was “an area with invisible boundaries surrounding a person’s body into which intruders may not come” ( Sommer, 1969 , p. 26). The sociologist Erving Goffman described a similar boundary space and observed that violations of it engendered displeasure and sometimes withdrawal ( Goffman, 1971 , p. 30).

One indication of the popularity of the topic lies in the results of a PsycINFO database search for publications related to “personal space.” 5 From 1970 to 2020, there were 1,798 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, 294 dissertations, and 145 books on personal space. The search revealed a peak throughout the 1990s, a dip during the 2000s, and a powerful resurgence during the 2010s. Interest in personal space continues today, not only in numerous scholarly articles and chapters, but also in a variety of popular printed and online outlets coaching people on how to deal with those who do not “give us our space.” In addition, TV commercials feature such violations at the doctor’s office or in our cars, and public service announcements have called out people who did not comply with mandated COVID-19 social distances. 6

Personal space versus interpersonal distance

We first need to clarify two terms. Our personal space, as the term is commonly used, is what lies inside an invisible, stable, subjective boundary that we claim as ours, defend from intruders, and use to regulate our interactions. This notion does not capture the complexities of how we use space and respond spatially to others, as indicated by studies of interpersonal distance , which involve the objective, measurable physical separations among individuals in social settings. These studies show that preferred measured distances depend on the culture, gender, and personalities of interactants (e.g., E. T. Hall, 1966 ; J. A. Hall & Gunnery, 2013 ; Matsumoto et al., 2016 ; Patterson, 1978 ).

Another research approach manipulates interpersonal distances by seating arrangement or confederate behavior to examine the impact on other aspects of social interaction. For example, the consequences of spatial intrusions can be explored by measuring the reactions of unsuspecting participants to close approaches by experimental confederates ( Brodsky et al., 1999 ; Felipe & Sommer, 1966 ; Patterson et al., 1971 ). Although interpersonal distance is objectively measurable, personal space is not. Again, personal space is subjective, defined, and verifiable only post hoc by measurements of people’s reactions to its invasion.

Problems with personal space

More than 45 years ago, the first author issued a cautionary note that was critical of the construct (Patterson, “Personal space: Time to burst the bubble?,” 1975 ). In a review of the early personal-space research, Hayduk (1983) noted that the analogy of personal space as a bubble was too simplistic, and instead suggested that it might be considered a kind of three-dimensional force field where force decreases with distance. Regardless of the appropriate analogy, the problems with the personal-space construct remain the same as they were in 1975. First, the notion of personal space implies an invariant, stable boundary separation from others. The presumed stability of this boundary is belied by the fact that people allow friends closer than strangers and their children closer than their friends. With romantic partners, the preference is often no space at all. Even with the same interaction partners, we are likely to prefer greater separations at work than at a party or when the other is in a foul mood. Although we certainly grant that some people are more standoffish than others, the reality is that our spacing preferences shrink and expand moment to moment, depending on a variety of factors. How can we know which one of these momentary preferences reflects the actual personal space?

Second, managing space in social settings is interpersonal rather than personal. Spatial preferences usually are not attached to specific other people per se but to the social roles of the interactants and the context of the interaction. 7 In seated interactions, the distancing options may be limited by chair placement and the social density of the setting. Standing interactions, however, allow for more fluid negotiations of initial spacing, with some dominolike rejiggering that resembles new birds joining their flock on an electric line.

Other behavioral adjustments can occur in ways that leave interpersonal distance unchanged. People sitting down next to us when other seats are free may lead us to avert gaze, maintain silence, and turn away from the intruder. Such compensation for the intrusion does not increase physical spacing, but it certainly increases psychological distance, and it mitigates the negative impact of the close approach ( Patterson, 1973 ). In contrast to pushy strangers, comparably close approaches from close friends, children, and partners can precipitate reciprocation of their close approach, in the form of increased gaze, smiling, touch, and chatter ( Patterson, 1976 ).

That people may either reciprocate or compensate for intrusions presents a third problem with personal space, namely that it fails to capture the complex, dynamic relationships among nonverbal behaviors when interpersonal closeness is negotiated. Everyday examples show how distance from others can be irrelevant to the overall impact of others’ presence. Would you rather have a generic stranger in an airport sit just beside you, or two seats away with an empty chair in between? The answer seems obvious; farther is usually better. But suppose that, amid rows of empty seats, a stranger sits six feet away in the row in front of yours, but directly opposite and facing you. In this case, you might try to avoid looking up and accidentally meeting the stranger’s gaze. Even if you manage to avoid that, you are still an easy target for the stranger’s scrutiny. With this arrangement, the farther stranger is more intrusive than the closer one sitting two seats adjacent. Examples such as this are buttressed by research showing that physical spacing is just one factor among many in determining how people manage their involvement with surrounding others ( Schaeffer & Patterson, 1980 ).

The advent of digital technologies has complicated how we navigate concepts such as closeness and involvement. In an earlier time, nonverbal behavior researchers would have been vexed to understand the intimacy of two letter-writers, a literal world apart, who exchanged the deepest of secrets over their lifetimes yet never shared a spoken word or gazed at each other’s countenance. Today, the vexation is compounded. What do we make of two people, sitting opposite one another, who are each video-chatting with others thousands of miles away? Who is closest to whom? McArthur (2016) noted the problems posed by digital proxemics , among them locating people and studying their interactions when they are partially or completely virtual.

Misconception No. 2: Conclusion

Like body language, the construct of a stable, insulating personal space is a simplistic one that impedes our understanding of NVC and its everyday application. There is no doubt that we have personal boundaries and feel intruded upon when they are violated, but contrary to the popular personal-space account, those boundaries are not stable across partners and situations. Rather, preferred distances are malleable across the circumstances of interaction. Furthermore, distance is just one component in a system of behaviors regulating our involvement with others. Gaze, touch, facial displays, body orientation, lean, and posture combine with distance to do the regulatory work and signal a likely course of action ( Crivelli & Fridlund, 2018 ; Fridlund, 2017 ; Patterson, 1983 , 2011 ). This process is typically dynamic and interpersonal, not static and attached to specific people across encounters. Numerous factors precipitate these behavioral adjustments in the service of momentary conscious and unconscious goals. These factors include setting features, expectancies, personality (and other temperamental predispositions, culture, gender, and external incentives ( Patterson, 2019 ).

Misconception No. 3: We Have Basic Emotions That Are “Read Out” by Universal, Evolved, Iconic, Categorical Facial Expressions

The face is a picture of the mind with the eyes as its interpreter. —Cicero

Was Cicero right to claim that seeing others’ faces was to know their minds? Can we see people’s faces and know what they really feel? Face reading to divine another’s inner life has a long history. Using faces to assess personality goes back at least to ancient Greece, but the idea that people’s faces mirror their real emotions was popularized by Charles LeBrun, court painter to Louis XIV ( Montagu, 1994 ). LeBrun linked each of Descartes’s categorical “passions” to its own face, declaring that the face displays the passions as a clock does the time. He prescribed precisely how each face should be drawn, with detailed paintings and schematic drawings ( Fridlund, 1994 , 2021 ), under the presumption that his art fit all humanity and not just the French upper class.

The doctrine of evolved universality

LeBrun’s legacy of stylized faces and their readout of matching emotions became received wisdom, and it lives on in today’s basic emotions theories (BET). These theories took hold in the late 1960s, mostly via Paul Ekman and his mentor Silvan Tomkins. Drawing upon Charles Darwin’s theorizing in The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals ( Darwin, 1872 ), Tomkins and Ekman proposed six universal, evolved, categorical, eruptile emotions, with the list of these basic emotions has grown over the years ( Ba˛k, 2016 ; Colombetti, 2014 ; Ekman & Cordaro, 2011 ; see commentary by Leys, 2017 ). Each emotion came with its own iconic face (e.g., smiles for happiness, scowls for anger, and pouty faces for sadness).

The major evidence used to claim the existence of evolved, universal basic emotions and their corresponding expressions came from a series of studies in which people were asked to select the best match of emotion terms or emotion-related stories to equal numbers of stagey posed faces, faces that eerily resembled LeBrun’s stylized portrayals. These were static faces, not the dynamic ones seen in everyday life. This was a method pioneered by Darwin ( Snyder et al., 2010 ). Initially done with American participants ( Allport, 1924 ; Tomkins & McCarter, 1964 ), these studies were extended to non-Western indigenous peoples, such as the Fore of Papua New Guinea ( Ekman et al., 1969 ; Ekman & Friesen, 1971 ).

Ekman’s ready generalization of such findings led to this proclamation: “When someone feels an emotion and is not trying to disguise it, his or her face appears the same no matter who that person is or where he or she comes from” ( Ekman, 1980 , p. 7). Although respondents from a few Pacific indigenous societies showed overall agreement rates above chance levels, the studies and the conclusions based on them have been seriously contested ( Crivelli & Gendron, 2017 ; Gendron et al., 2018 ; Nelson & Russell, 2013 ; Russell, 1994 , 1995 ; cf. Ekman, 2017 ).

The idea that there was a set of faces reflecting the same emotions worldwide caught fire and was part of a 1960s Zeitgeist in which antiwar sentiment was brewing worldwide against the prevailing Cold War fever. It was in that emerging globalist context that those supposedly universal faces with their matching emotion terms found their way into nearly every introductory psychology text and were made into posters displayed on preschool walls ( Crivelli & Fridlund, 2019 ). Cognitive-neuroscience researchers now use those categorical faces as probes to locate purported “emotion centers” in the brain ( Celeghin et al., 2017 ; Morris et al., 1996 ; but see Lindquist et al., 2012 ). Artificial intelligence (AI) researchers use databases composed of such poses as training sets for AI applications intended to discern people’s emotions ( Haamer et al., 2018 ; McDuff et al., 2016 ).

It now appears that the universality bandwagon was premature, and its endorsement of the Western received wisdom that certain categorical faces portray inner emotions was ill-founded on many grounds ( Barrett et al., 2019 ; Leys, 2017 ; Ortony, 2021 ). The difficulties were apparent but underplayed in the original studies. In line with their authors’ preconceptions, cultural matching rates as low as 40% to 50% were considered accurate recognition of the presumptively termed “facial expressions of emotion” ( Crivelli & Gendron, 2017 ; Russell, 1994 , 2017 ). 8 These low matching rates depended on the level of Westernization, and they were likely inflated by numerous technical factors ( Nelson & Russell, 2013 ). More generally, the interpretation of those studies reflected the BET presumption that evolution promotes universality, whereas culture promotes diversity. This presumption is fallacious. Evolution readily creates diversity, a fact highlighted by Darwin himself in his adaptive radiation . Cultural transmission can easily account for any uniformity, not only through common learning, but also because we are all products of one long migration, and many cultural practices migrated with us ( Crivelli & Fridlund, 2018 , 2019 ; Fridlund, 1994 ; Richerson & Boyd, 2005 ).

Acknowledging cultural diversity

Initially, BET’s foundational studies seemed to confirm a common set of facial prototypes expressing basic emotions, and these emotions and expressions were considered one of several human universals ( Brown, 1991 ). Evolutionary psychologists used these studies to argue that basic emotions exemplified domain-specific psychological adaptations that evolved to solve everyday problems ( Ekman, 1992 ; Tooby & Cosmides, 1990 ). Facial behaviors, used as proxies of basic emotions, were cast as outputs of categorical evolved psychological mechanisms ( Shariff & Tracy, 2011 ).

In the 2010s, criticisms began to emerge regarding the generality of key findings, because of their narrow sampling of human cultures as well as their questionable assumption that Western lab-based experimental methods could be reappropriated for the study of diverse cultures ( Crivelli, Jarillo, & Fridlund, 2016 ). This second-guessing of the early studies occurred in the context of a spate of failures to replicate highly publicized findings in the health, cognitive, and behavioral sciences. These failures resulted in a push to reform scientific practices to ensure the trustworthiness and reproducibility of science ( Ioannidis, 2012 ; Open Science Collaboration, 2015 ).

Amid calls for reform, “expressions of basic emotions” remained on the shrinking list of human universals ( Henrich et al., 2010 ), but not for long. Two independent multidisciplinary research teams ventured out to test the universality of the so-called facial expressions of emotion in four small-scale societies: the Trobrianders of Papua New Guinea, the Himba of Namibia, the Hadza of Tanzania, and the Mwani of Mozambique ( Crivelli, Jarillo et al., 2016 ; Crivelli et al., 2017 ; Crivelli, Russell, et al., 2016 ; Gendron et al., 2014 , 2020 ).

Findings from these studies revealed considerable cultural diversity in the faces people use and how they interpret and react to them. In addition, these studies used both classic forced-choice methods and innovative ones that allowed for more data-driven results using less constrained methods of inquiry ( Gendron et al., 2015 , 2018 ). The investigators were also more attuned to ethnographic issues sidestepped in the early BET studies but now mandated for internal and external validity, and they made sure to include diverse methods, samples, and collaborators ( Medin, 2017 ; Medin et al., 2017 ). These studies in small-scale societies included extensive prior fieldwork to attain knowledge bases of cultural practices and conceptions ( Kagan, 2007 ; Rai & Fiske, 2010 ), personal facility with the local languages, and hypothesis testing aligned with the in-field findings ( Crivelli, Jarillo, & Fridlund, 2016 ).

Did these new findings overturn the vaunted universality of the “Ekman faces” and their presumed relations to emotion? Ekman (2017 , p. 42) himself provided a new criterion to falsify the existence of a set of universal facial expressions of emotion: if “the expressions that the majority of people in one country judged as showing one emotion (let us say anger) were judged as showing another emotion (fear) by the majority in another culture. This never happened.” It did, but it took researchers outside the BET tradition to show it. Trobrianders of Papua New Guinea understood BET’s supposedly universal “fear” face as an agonistic threat display ( Crivelli, Russell, et al., 2016 ), and that usage occurs not just among one exotic group of people but also in several African, Amazonian, and Pacific small-scale, indigenous societies ( Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989 ).

Do faces really express emotion?

The discovery of cultural diversity in how we use our faces has also led to a rethinking of the general idea that our faces are readouts of emotion. It turns out that the presumed concordances between faces and emotions, which BET had assumed were universal, may not exist even within industrialized societies ( Jack et al., 2012 ). Moreover, a recent meta-analysis of studies of both coded BET-categorized facial expressions and emotion measured by its commonest proxy, self-report, showed that concordance between the two was modest to low ( Durán et al., 2017 ; Durán & Fernández-Dols, 2021 ). Evidence from studies of facial behavior of infants and the congenitally blind, as well as research on both the production and perception of adult facial behavior, suggests that our faces resist categorical interpretation as indications of emotion ( Barrett et al., 2019 ). How is this weak concordance possible when such a connection seems intuitive, at least to Westerners? Three factors undoubtedly contribute.

First, many faces taken as expressions of emotion are actually paralinguistic forms of social judgment and appraisal ( Bavelas, 2007 ; Fridlund, 1994 ). This happens, for example, when “angry” faces relay condemnation and “sad” faces disappointment; “happy” faces condone, appease, and approve; “fear” faces signal submission; and “disgust” faces show revulsion. These faces act as running commentaries on, and sometimes interjections about, the actions or utterances of interactants. They are often quite independent of one’s “inner emotion” because their referents are external. So when we ask a friend, “How was the movie?” it is unlikely that her smiles or frowns are about some inner state; they are about the movie (cf. Fridlund, 1994 ).

Second, we seldom test our assumptions about what others’ faces indicate, nor do we have any ground truth by which to do so. We default to our culture’s received wisdom and turn our social beliefs into self-fulfilling prophecies ( Merton, 1948 ). Only when we venture past those defaults do we discover that the smiler was humiliated, the scowler was physically injured, and the tearful person just received news that her cancer was in remission.

Third, we are wretched witnesses and historians regarding how we use our own faces. Indeed, all the problems of eyewitness testimony (e.g., people closest to a crime are often the least reliable reporters) are redoubled when people act as their own witnesses ( Fridlund & Russell, in press ). One clever study demonstrated just this point. Schützwohl and Reisenzein (2012) arranged for participants to arrive at their laboratory via a stark corridor. After some in-lab activities, they were asked to leave by the same door. When the participants left the lab, however, they did not see the corridor—they entered a small room painted bright green with a red office chair, a quick change of scene accomplished with movable prefabricated elements. Almost all participants reported being quite surprised and showing it on their faces, but the BET-stipulated “surprise” face was displayed by only 5% of them.

What do faces really do?

If “facial expressions of emotion” really aren’t, then what are these facial movements? A clue came from dramatic developments in how biologists regarded the signals issued by nonhumans. During the 1950s and 1960s, ethologists such as Niko Tinbergen and Konrad Lorenz regarded animal communicative displays as the outputs of content-insensitive tripwire mechanisms triggered by releasing stimuli ( Lorenz, 1967 ; Tinbergen, 1953 ). For example, red bellies on male stickleback fish provoked territorial aggression by other males, and displaced graylag goose eggs—or even golf balls planted by wily experimenters—triggered egg retrieval. In the 1970s, however, a new generation of ethologists found that these displays were not fixed or cartoonish eruptions but flexible, social, and contextual signals by which animals negotiated social encounters ( Marler et al., 1986a , 1986b ; Smith, 1977 ). On this basis, zoologist Robert Hinde (1985) questioned whether Darwin’s The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872) was mistitled.

A new breed of behavioral ecologists rejected the view that animal signals were reflexive, or eruptions of categorical emotions, because no animal could survive for long if it kept issuing signals to its own detriment ( Krebs & Davies, 1978 ; Maynard Smith, 1982 ). Rather, displays were understood as serving the interests of signalers within their social environments. Signaler and observer, even when they were predator and prey, became coevolved dyads in which displayers indicated their contingent behavior, and observers used display behaviors to predict the issuers’ next moves ( Krebs & Davies, 1987 ; Krebs & Dawkins, 1984 ).

Beginning in the early 1990s, Fridlund (1991a , 1994 ) saw that behavioral ecologists were finding animal displays much more strategic and context-dependent than BET’s approaches were granting for human faces. He developed the behavioral ecology view of human facial expression (BECV) based on contemporary evolutionary principles. There are four main tenets of BECV.

First, it reconceives human facial displays, like those of animals, as indications of contingent intent rather than expressions of emotion. In other words, faces are social tools by which people influence their social interactants. 9 Table 1 contrasts this functional view with the usual basic-emotions descriptions. Thus, people may show the prototypical BET “angry” face regardless of whether or not the displayer is angry. The face may be disapproving, deterring, disciplinary, part of a power-play to subordinate, or simply a sign of constipation or acid reflux. Similarly, people make the BET “sad” face to recruit succor or affirmation, whether they’re injured (“Mommy, it hurts!”), relieved (“My partner didn’t have a heart attack after all”), or chagrined (“How could you do this to me?”).

Two Approaches to Common Facial Behaviors: Expressions of Internal Emotions Versus Functional Social Tools

Facial behavior	BET (emotion expressed)	BECV (social-tool use)
Smiling	Happiness	Influence interactant to play or affiliate
Pouting	Sadness	Recruit interactant’s succor, protection, or affirmation
Scowling	Anger	Influence interactant to submit
Gasping	Fear	Deflect interactant’s attack via one’s own submission or incipient retreat
Nose scrunching	Disgust	Reject current interaction trajectory
Neutral	Suppressed emotion Poker face, or no emotion	Lead the interactant nowhere in interaction trajectory
Microexpressions or compound expressions	Leaked or blended emotion	Conflict between displayer’s interactional tactics

BET = basic emotions theory. BECV = behavioral ecology view (of facial displays). Social-tool use refers to possible usage of common facial behaviors, cast in terms of behavioral consequence. Actual display behaviors and usages in BECV are dependent on interactant identities, histories, and the social context.

Second, BECV understands solitary faces as implicitly social in various everyday situations—for example, when people call out for rescue, pray to God, nurse their houseplants, curse recalcitrant computers, imagine attentive others, and praise themselves for their cleverness or performance (see Crivelli & Fridlund, 2019 ; Fridlund, 1991b , 1994 ; and Fridlund & Duchaine, 1996 ; for discussions of implicit and animistic interactions).

Third, BECV recognizes that natural selection and cultural selection can each generate commonalities or divergences via numerous mechanisms, and any human facial behavior will always reflect both nature and culture ( Lindquist et al., 2022 ). No universality can be presupposed, nor can commonalities be assigned a priori to nature with divergences left to culture.

Last, BECV considers the idea that faces “leak” to reveal breakthrough emotion to be unverified and probably unverifiable. Glimpses of incongruous facial behavior, such as so-called microexpressions, instead signify momentarily conflicting intentions (we discuss this further under the next misconception). Thus, parents disciplining their children for finding their way into the cookie jar may glare at them to press the point yet betray a flicker of a smile to approve their cleverness.

Misconception No. 3: Conclusion

The common-sense view that categorical emotions were causally linked to certain iconic facial behaviors was rooted in Western philosophical and artistic traditions regarding the “passions.” The authors of BET’s foundational studies in Papua New Guinea perpetuated the Western narrative and regarded it as the self-evident product of human evolution. They made the existence of universal categorical basic emotions and corresponding eruptive overt behaviors (i.e., putative facial expressions of emotion) a fundamental part of human nature, such as bipedalism or stereoscopic vision, and the expressions were likened to other purported universals, such as color perception or analog numeracy ( Ekman, 1992 ; Henrich et al., 2010 ; Tracy, 2014 ).

In some respects, aspiring to prove universality in facial expressions—an all-or-none proposition—was always a tall order, because so few cultures were ever studied ( Nelson & Russell, 2013 ; Russell, 1994 ), and because behavioral traits tend to show much more variation than morphological ones. The most conspicuous example is handedness. Worldwide, the prevalence of right-handedness is roughly 90%, far above the cultural matching rates in any facial-expression study, yet no one has spoken of the universality of dexterity; sinistrality and ambidexterity are recognized, stable variations ( Crivelli & Fridlund, 2018 ). It therefore came as no surprise when recent studies in four small-scale African and Pacific societies failed to replicate BET’s canonical studies. The results, found in small-scale societies, were based on tests of both BET predictions and alternative hypotheses.

It appears that, with regard to facial expressions, the doctrine of universality has failed empirical testing. In the last decade, the data gathered in small-scale societies have extended our knowledge on the extent of diversity, context dependency, and flexibility in the behaviors that human beings use to negotiate encounters with others. These cross-cultural findings, which countered the presumption that human emotions were universally expressed on faces, were anticipated by Darwin (e.g., adaptive radiation in the Galapagos) and the behavioral ecologists who emerged in the 1970s.

We suggest that emotion may not be the best way to understand what we do with our faces. In the 1990s, BECV redefined how we conceptualize human facial displays using an externalist and functional perspective in a way that reconciles psychology with evolutionary biology, and it accorded humans the same subtlety and interactivity in their displays as modern theorists give to nonhumans. 10

The fact that expression does not imply categorical emotion is brought home in human-computer interactions in which people interact with avatars, or simulated humans, in real or virtual worlds. Suppose a child is interacting with a pedagogical avatar as part of computerized instruction ( Lin et al., 2020 ). If the avatar smiles at the child’s performance, do we conclude that the computer creating it is internally happy? And if the avatar scowls when the child uses blacklisted curse words, does its scowl mean that the computer is angry? Clearly, the avatar’s faces are intended to guide the child’s conduct. We believe that people’s faces work the same way.

This discussion does not and should not imply that cross-cultural research on facial expressions has become any less important. Commonalities and differences may emerge with detailed studies that do not favor either. Future studies of facial expressions should examine which faces occur, by whom, in what settings, in which societies. Such studies should proceed without undue theoretical burden, such as the stipulation that they express categorical emotions. In accordance with BECV and the systems approach we outline below, we believe that these studies should focus on how faces integrate with language and other nonverbal behaviors to regulate social interactions.

Misconception No. 4: The Body Never Lies

The final misconception concerns the claim that distinctive, identifiable nonverbal behaviors are reliable indicators of deception. The role of nonverbal cues in detecting deception has long been a popular topic for researchers and the lay public. The phrase “the body never lies” reflects an implicit, and sometimes explicit, assumption that deception can be detected by some disconnect between the content of a lie and the speaker’s nonverbal behavior ( Nierenberg et al., 2010 ). Where on the body those lies are supposedly detected has ranged literally from head to toe—from head movements and facial twitches to postural shifts and foot jiggling.

The notion has permeated Western popular culture, basic science, and high-stakes arenas such as global terrorism and counterintelligence, and it has become so longstanding and ingrained that streams of private and public funding now sustain a multibillion-dollar industry predicated on claims that liars can be caught by analyzing certain nonverbal behaviors. An August 2020 Amazon.com search for books on body language and deception turned up 305 results, including titles such as Spy the Lie: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Detect Deception and Detect Deceit: How to Become a Human Lie Detector in Under 60 Minutes ( https://www.amazon.com/s?k=%22body+language%22+and+deception&ref=nb_sb_noss_2 ).

Just as YouTube influencers tout what they call “body language” as key to success, they also guide their fanbases to learn how to spot deceit in in their partners, bosses, associates, and children. One YouTube channel, “The Behavior Panel” ( https://www.youtub.com/channel/UCx_8ri2rYergbu_06VNSPlw ), features the “world’s leading behavior experts” decoding videos of politicians and celebrities to divine what they really mean when they avert their eyes, twitch their lips or noses, sit straight or slump, and pause too little or too long when they speak. Is there any merit to such popular practices? To simplify our overview of research on nonverbal behavior and deception, we focus first on bodily movements and then on facial displays.

Bodily movements and deception

Sigmund Freud often noticed that his psychoanalytic patients made off-task movements as they free associated or related their dreams. With a seeming lack of awareness, they fiddled with their watch chains, removed and replaced their wedding rings, or jiggled their pocket change. Freud termed these “symptomatic and chance actions” parapraxes , and he considered them revelations of unconscious material that conflicted with what was conscious ( Freud, 1901/1915 ). Some nonverbal behavior researchers used the same logic to claim that bodily movements divulge the truth while the mouth tells the lie. The belief that lies are transparent dates back nearly 3,000 years and sees currency in the legal system, where jurors are instructed to notice the nonverbal behavior of people in the witness chair ( Vrij et al., 2019 ).

Could Freud’s conflict formulation, minus its conscious/unconscious corollary, explain the bodily movements held to indicate deception? Ethologists have long observed that animals show “conflict behaviors” when they are at behavioral junctures. To deter interlopers, birds at a territorial boundary must choose either to charge across the boundary or stand their own ground inside it, and they often displace or redirect the conflict by preening, pecking the ground, or plucking the grass ( Alcock, 1984 , Fridlund, 1994 ). Numerous studies have shown that increased psychological stress results in greater body muscular activity. Temperamentally anxious people tend to be tenser and more agitated as well ( Fridlund et al., 1986 ; Hazlett et al., 1994 ; Jung et al., 2016 ). Might this stress account for the supposedly telltale bodily signs of deception? Trivers (2011) suggested three reasons, all related to stress, why there might be such signs: (a) “because of the negative consequences of being detected . . . people are expected to be nervous when lying”; (b) because concern over appearing nervous may lead people to “exert control, trying to suppress behavior” leading to “overacting, overcontrol, a planned and rehearsed impression, or displacement activities”; and (c) because the cognitive requirements or “load” of lying means that liars “think too hard,” which has behavioral repercussions (p. 10).

How exactly would those factors be evident? Here we find a vast amount of lore regarding bodily signs of deception. Trivers suggested that deception would be accompanied by less blinking, fidgeting, and hand gesturing, but longer speech pauses and increased vocal pitch ( Trivers, 2011 , pp. 10–12). In Spy the Lie: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Detect Deception ( Houston et al., 2012 ), the authors descried the “behavioral myths” that pervade the field (p. 25) yet contended that being inappropriately polite (p. 38) is a clue, as is gesturing that hides the mouth or eyes. Throat clearing or swallowing is another giveaway, as are biting or licking the lips, grooming actions like hand-combing the hair, and “sweat management” such as hand-wiping the brow or pulling out a handkerchief to do it.

Were Trivers’s suppositions on target? Are the CIA retirees in Spy the Lie telling the truth? Unless various intelligence services have conducted top-secret validation studies, 11 we must be content with publicly available research, and it paints a starkly different picture. The consensus of deception researchers is the one reached by Charles Bond and Bella DePaulo in their analysis of over 200 studies of judgment accuracy in nonverbal detection of deception. This analysis found that judges were no more accurate “than would be expected by chance, and the best judges are no more accurate than a stochastic mechanism would produce” ( Bond & DePaulo, 2008 , p. 477).

Most of these studies had observers make global judgments about deceit and did not explore what specific behaviors informed their judgments. Isolating those behaviors was the goal of a massive earlier meta-analysis by DePaulo et al. (2003) , who compiled 120 separate data sets from 116 studies that encompassed nearly a dozen ethnic groups and found roughly 100 behaviors that were predominantly nonverbal. Restricting these cues to ones that emerged in more than six studies, 50 behaviors remained. Effect sizes were computed on the basis of mean occurrences of those behaviors in deceptive versus nondeceptive conditions. Only 14 of the 50 cues were statistically significant discriminators of potential detection, with the standout cue being “verbal and vocal immediacy . . . [the] degree to which responses sound direct, relevant, clear, and personal.” Following that was “discrepancy or ambivalence” in verbal and nonverbal presentation.

In their summary of DePaulo et al.’s (2003) most relevant findings, Vrij et al. (2019) observed that most cues that were at least partly nonverbal showed no relationship to deception whatsoever. For the ones that did, the effect sizes were small, leading Vrij et al. to the dismal conclusion “that those cues are mostly unrelated or, at best, weakly related to deception” (p. 302). Even this weak relationship is suspect. Most detection-of-deception contexts are likely to engender stress in both the innocent and the guilty, and it is crucial to remember, consistent with Trivers’s (2011) cautions, that any indications of stress can be interpreted in multiple ways. People may be stressed not because they are lying but because they fear being accused of it (rightly or wrongly), resent the fact that they are suspected of it, or are simply fraught at being put on the spot about it. 12

So what do we make of the evidence? Overall, it appears that “liars” give off nonverbal behaviors while they are lying. But such nonverbal behaviors do not certify their lying, because both liars and nonliars may give off the same nonverbal behaviors for reasons other than lying (i.e., when they are anxious). Given this state of affairs, Vrij et al. (2019) noted the patent, persistent, disturbing discordance between such findings and the current practices of so-called lie-detection experts: “Lively debates about the merits of nonverbal lie detection no longer take place at the scientific conferences that we attend. Yet nonverbal lie detection remains highly popular among practitioners, such as police detectives, and in the media” (p. 302). As we shall see, this same disconnect between the evidence on bodily movement and deception and its unwarranted application extends to facial displays and facial deception.

Bodily deception and pseudoscience

In light of the overwhelming evidence debunking the misconception that the “body never lies,” it may be unsurprising that commonly used detection-of-deception programs based on the misconception do not fare well. An important critical review captured the prevalence of this misconception and pulled no punches in slamming much of nonverbal-behavior detection of deception as unalloyed pseudoscience ( Denault et al., 2020 ). Among the egregious offenders was the most common behavior-oriented protocol, the Behavior Analysis Interview (BAI). The BAI involves a nonaccusatory interview at first, followed by an Inquisition-like confrontation consisting of 15 standard questions intended “to elicit an initial admission of guilt” ( Inbau et al., 2013 , p. 294, cited by Denault et al., 2020 , p. 4).

Certain examinee nonverbal behaviors in the BAI interrogation are stipulated to be signs of deceit, including maintaining a closed, withdrawn posture, sitting askew in the chair, and leaning forward constantly. Opposite movements and postures indicate honesty. Lack of eye contact and gaze aversion are likely to indicate the withholding of information, a clear departure from numerous findings indicating no relationship to deception. These behaviors are judged to indicate guilt on the basis of the BAI’s declaration that guilty parties will be more stressed by interrogation than innocent ones. This assumption may hold in some cases but is clearly unfounded in many others. For example, recidivists judged guilty yet again may be far less stressed at the prospect than innocent people who are falsely judged guilty. For them, the consequences could be catastrophic. As evidence of the flimsiness of the BAI’s rationale and practice, the only empirical investigation of the BAI in which the ground truth of guilt or innocence was known—a mock theft analogue study—found that BAI results could not discriminate the guilty from the innocent ( Vrij et al., 2006 ).

Perhaps no psychological theory has ever been tested at greater effort and expense—and gotten worse results—than the program for Screening of Passengers by Observational Techniques (SPOT) by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Introduced in 2006 and premised on the claim that “behavioral indicators . . . can be used to identify persons who may pose a risk to aviation security” ( U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2013 ), the TSA deployed about 3,000 behavior detection officers across 176 U.S. airports. These officers were trained to observe airline passengers at prescreening using a 92-item checklist of criteria that included exaggerated yawning, mouth-covering, a bobbing Adam’s apple, excessive throat clearing, rapid blinking, complaining more than usual about the screening process, whistling while approaching screening, gazing down, a pale face in males from recent shaving, and the rubbing or wringing of hands ( Winter & Currier, 2015 ).

Denault et al.’s (2020) review of pseudoscience in nonverbal behavior detailed SPOT’s ignominious failure on field testing. Similarly, the GAO’s summary judgment on SPOT concluded that “meta-analyses and other published research studies we reviewed do not support whether nonverbal behavioral indicators can be used to reliably identify deception” ( GAO, 2013 , p. 15). The outcome data from SPOT might have been anticipated given the paucity of evidence that nonverbal behaviors were reliable indicators of deception per se ( Bond & DePaulo, 2008 ; DePaulo et al., 2003 ).

The GAO (2013), in its internal review of 400 separate studies related to detecting deception, noted that “the ability of human observers to accurately identify deceptive behavior based on behavioral cues or indicators is the same as or slightly better than chance (54 “percent”)” (p. 16). Moreover, the 178 sources of evidence the TSA used to justify its behavioral indicators boiled down to only three original research articles, and these few articles only supported the use of some of the indicators comprising the TSA’s checklist. The GAO’s overall assessment? “Decades of peer-reviewed, published research on the complexities associated with detecting deception through human observation called into question the scientific basis for TSA’s behavior detection activities” (GAO, 2013, p. 47). As Denault et al. (2020) indicated, SPOT cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $1.5 billion for 2007 to 2015, with little to show for it. Did the TSA disband SPOT as a failed program? As with many government programs, ineffectiveness has not compromised longevity, and SPOT seems simply to have reemerged under the radar as a new TSA surveillance program called Quiet Skies.

Facial deception: discordant displays and microexpressions

In detecting deception, does the face provide better clues than the body? The dominant theory of faces, BET, claimed that we deceive with our faces in two ways—by making faces discordant with how we feel, and by showing intrusive facial behavior that reveals emotions we try to suppress. We summarize and show fatal problems with both.

Discordant displays

The presumption of authentic face-emotion links in BET widened the scope of deceit to unprecedented phenomena. Under the BET position that individuals feeling a basic emotion and not trying to conceal their feelings produced the same facial expressions across societies ( Ekman, 1980 ), BET researchers concluded that people whose emotional states did not match their facial expressions were lying about their feelings with their faces ( Ekman & Friesen, 1975 ). From this perspective, bursting into tears at discovering one’s child was not critically ill became deceptive, because a teary-eyed face is supposed to signal inner sadness.

Among the different facial displays that were considered universal expressions of emotion, the study of smiling has been pivotal. Under BET assumptions, for example, smiling at work while in a cranky mood would be deceptive, because authentic or “felt” smiles arise only with happiness ( Ekman & Friesen, 1982 ). However, this perspective does not take into account that the cranky person, though irritable, might also want to be authentically courteous; it turns everyday politeness into mendacity ( Fridlund, 2017 ). BET studies of facial deception nonetheless began promoting the idea that smiles accompanied by wincing, the so-called Duchenne smiles, were authentic, felt, and spontaneous, whereas those smiles without wincing were “unfelt,” deliberate, and therefore false and phony ( Ekman et al., 1990 ). This claim was accepted uncritically, despite the original report’s lack of discriminant validation and the fact that wincing in the Duchenne smile was an artifact of stimulus intensity and not hedonics ( Fridlund, 1994 ).

Indeed, subsequent research has shown that, contrary to BET proclamations, Duchenne smiles (a) are at least as affected by sociality as non-Duchenne ones, and occur frequently in highly scripted social encounters; (b) can be produced easily on request; and (c) occur as a function of both smile intensity and stimulus intensity regardless of valence ( Crivelli & Fridlund, 2019 ; Fernández-Dols & Carrera, 2010 ; Girard et al., 2021 ; Krumhuber & Kappas, 2022 ; Krumhuber & Manstead, 2009 ).

Microexpressions

Micromomentary expressions were first discussed by Haggard and Isaacs (1966) , who reviewed videotapes of psychotherapy patients. They found flashes of facial behavior that interrupted more sustained expressions and were noticed mostly when the playback was slowed. Like Freud with his parapraxes, the authors saw these glimpses, which lasted only a fraction of a second, as revelations of suppressed content. Other researchers noted similar therapy-related behaviors and claimed that these fleeting facial movements revealed deception ( Ekman & Friesen, 1969 ). Microexpressions, however, arose as a post hoc explanation for the results obtained in a well-known study with nurses ( Ekman & Friesen, 1974a , 1974b ). The paradigmatic study, reviewed by Fridlund (2021) , had two experimental conditions. In the honest condition, female nursing students individually watched excerpts of a pleasant film with an interviewer present who asked participants to “truthfully describe their reactions” during the film. In the dishonest condition, the students were asked to watch a medical film detailing amputations and severe burns and to “conceal negative affect” during the film. In the dishonest condition, the questioning was confrontational (“What kinds of feelings are you having right now?”; “Are you telling me the truth?”; “Do you think I believe you?”; Ekman & Friesen, 1974a , p. 291). Untrained student observers who viewed video snippets could not distinguish honest from deceptive instances on the basis of facial behavior. One decade later, these researchers replicated the nursing studies, finding similar unimpressive results ( O’Sullivan et al., 1988 ).

Rather than accepting these null findings, the researchers faulted their judges, claiming that these microexpressions were so brief, with durations from 1/25 s to 1/5 s, that their untrained observers would naturally have missed them. To prove their point, they commissioned “four experienced facial analysts,” all unnamed, to judge the nursing students’ recorded faces, and they reported that these experts accurately judged both the honest and deceptive behavior in most of the trials ( Ekman & Friesen, 1974a ). These findings came with no description of the procedures used, the judgment criteria, the specific outcome data, or any assurance that the scoring was blind. Needless to say, these claims were greeted with skepticism (see Bond, 2008 ; Bond & Uysal, 2007 ; cf. Ekman et al., 2008 ).

The idea that microexpressions are to be seen in human faces gained traction mainly on the strength of such anecdotal evidence, and found its way into basic and applied science and self-help trade books. Eventually introductory psychology, criminology, and forensic texts mentioned microexpressions, and the range of applications soon extended from national security to marital relations and personnel recruitment ( Ekman, 2003 , 2009 ; Gladwell, 2005 ; Li et al., 2018 ; Navarro & Karlins, 2008 ).

These developments transpired years before the first independent targeted investigations of microexpressions and deceit ( Porter et al., 2012 ; Porter & ten Brinke, 2008 ; K. ten Brinke & Porter, 2012 ; L. ten Brinke et al., 2012 ). Porter, ten Brinke, and colleagues had participants view slides of various emotional-related stimuli while facing a camera that recorded their facial behavior, with instructions to “falsify,” “simulate,” or be “genuine.” Matsumoto and Hwang (2018) summarized these studies as showing (a) that microexpressions are quite rare, occurring in only 2% of all expressions ( Porter & ten Brinke, 2008 ); (b) that the studies did not distinguish genuine from feigned remorse ( L. ten Brinke et al., 2012 ); and (c) that the studies did not separate truthful from deceitful individuals regardless of stimulus intensity ( Porter et al., 2012 ). The final result stood even when judges were shown internationally televised videos of people pleading for the return of missing relatives, with half the pleaders having actually murdered the relatives themselves ( K. ten Brinke & Porter, 2012 ). Finally, controlled research on one well-established set of microexpression “training tools” found that, with training, overall accuracy at detecting deception was slightly below chance ( Jordan et al., 2019 ).

Facial deception in context

As we noted earlier, all these studies of faces and deceit were bizarre distentions of the concept of deception, in that deviations from theory-driven predictions were made criterial. It was assumed that participants experienced certain emotions because of situations contrived to produce them (whether participants were exposed to face photos or videos or staged scenarios), and it was assumed that the experienced emotions would produce certain stipulated faces. Suppressed emotion, it was also stipulated, would leak onto the face, and so instructions to suppress, falsify, or neutralize the predicted faces to produce microexpressions were pitting purposeful actions against natural faces, with any incongruities reflecting the latter’s irrepressibility. This conflict between willfulness and authenticity was said to emanate from a neurological tug of war between competing brain structures ( Matsumoto & Hwang, 2018 ; Matsumoto & Lee, 1993 ).

All this theorizing was unnecessarily complex and inattentive to the social demands of the experimental context. The nurses’ study ( Ekman & Friesen, 1974a ), like the many procedural variations used subsequently, was more prosaically understandable in terms of the instigation of ordinary conflicts in impression management. Simply put, nursing students were led to make faces that both reassured others (nurses must be empathic, and the participants were eager to become nurses) and showed stolidity (good nurses must conceal their discomfort from patients). If the “four experienced facial analysts” of the nurses’ study indeed observed microexpressions, then those signs were merely conflict behaviors arising from situationally contrived ambivalence, not telltale leakages of suppressed emotions ( Fridlund, 2021 ).

Misconception No. 4: Conclusion

Can we accurately “read” the nonverbal behavior and microexpressions of partners who have cheated, children who stole cookies from the cookie jar, or defendants who killed victims they insist they never met? Research evaluating the use of bodily movements to detect deception has turned up either null or minimal results. Literature reviews and meta-analyses show that facial microexpressions are infrequent, and inferences about them readily lead to both false negatives and false positives ( Burgoon, 2018 ; DePaulo et al., 2003 ; Hartwig & Bond, 2011 ). Studies intended to be about deception per se often missed the mark precisely because they did not take into account the contextual factors that led to stress and ambivalence in their participants, signs of which were mislabeled “deception.”

The misguided belief that we can reliably detect deception using either the body or the face has been fueled in part by the lay conviction that people should be able to tell when they are being deceived, as the unpleasant truth leaves them vulnerable. 13 Yet another reason this belief persists lies in the fact that there is money to be made by claiming that one can teach how to detect deceit, and there is a history of flawed science supporting that enterprise ( Jupe & Denault, 2019 ; Jupe & Keatley, 2020 ). This creates a conflict of interest that jeopardizes the integrity of both research and its application ( Chivers, 2019 ).

What will happen to the understanding of deception when we participate as our own digital avatars in the metaverse? As we interact with virtual others, will we continue to believe that we can see deception in the synthetic representations of others? Or will we “world-switch” here, too? Will we learn to base judgments of others’ truthfulness on evidence other than their electronically replicated nonverbal behavior, as we should have done long ago in the real world? Or will a virtual jurisprudence evolve by which nonverbal indicators like on-screen gauges, possibly superimposed on virtual others, signal their credibility and ours, with virtual penalties for computer-detected instances of virtual deception?

Nonverbal Behavior Without the Misconceptions: A Systems Approach

In this article, we have discussed four common misconceptions about NVC. In our view, it is time to move beyond several ill-founded beliefs: (a) that NVC is a language; (b) that individuals possess a stable personal space that regulates their in-person contacts with others; (c) that our emotions are read out by universal, iconic, categorical facial displays; and (d) that the body never lies. From our vantage point, the Internet and social media have perpetuated these misconceptions, making claims that go well past the evidence. Propelled by obvious incentives, some professionals have used dubious science to promote practices that are unfounded, unreliable, and expensive.

Countering the misconceptions

How might we clear the field of these misconceptions, provide a better framework for research, and accurately represent our results to the public? The replication crisis in psychology and other sciences has led to increased skepticism about high-profile findings with large payouts but dubious evidential bases. As we have seen, well-known meta-analyses on detection of deception were largely ignored, and it took the failure of a $1.5 billion U.S. government program to bring the cautionary research to public attention. Our most specific recommendation is that such high-profile endeavors should receive the earliest and most thorough scrutiny. Of course, this is no guarantee that the field of NVC will be purged of either bad science or frank pseudoscience.

More generally, what we propose is not an alternative set of dogmas, but rather a systems approach to research and theory that stimulates wide-ranging inquiry. An example of this kind of approach is a recent model of dyadic nonverbal interaction ( Patterson, 2019 ). In general, the systems model describes and explains the dynamic interplay among individual, dyadic, and environmental processes in nonverbal interactions. That is, any particular outcome, whether it is a nonverbal display, a judgment of others’ nonverbal behavior, or a combination of both, is best understood as emanating from a network of interrelated processes. Although the details are beyond the scope of this article, the systems model embraces three principles that undercut the misconceptions we have described. Specifically, the model emphasizes that NVC engages multiple cues and behaviors concurrently; that NVC is interactive; and that context is critical, with the physical setting staging all our interactions, and with culture always the deep context. We review the importance of all three ideas.

Multiple cues and behaviors

NVC is the product of multiple cues and behaviors ( Patterson, 1995 , 2011 ). On the sending side, individuals at any given point in an interaction display a variety of appearance cues and initiate a complex of behaviors. On the receiving side, individuals have a complementary role, perceiving a wide range of others’ appearance cues and behaviors. Of course, not all available cues and behaviors may register, and some of them may be weighted more heavily than others ( Patterson, 2019 ). Simultaneous sending and receiving of such cue-behavior patterns occur even in brief interactions. To assume that any one behavior in isolation (e.g., a nose touch, or altered gaze) is part of a body language with invariant meanings misrepresents the configural nature of the multiple components that comprise NVC. Thus, the meaning of a specific action or display depends on the overall cue-behavior pattern. Likewise, the misconception of personal space results from an inattention to the multiple components (e.g., gaze, body orientation, facial displays, or other related behaviors) that determine the meaning and impact of NVC.

Nonverbal communication is interactive

Our focus here is, of course, in social settings, but we must reexamine the boundaries of what is “social.” We cannot overlook the implicit sociality of the verbal and nonverbal behaviors that occur when we are physically alone, such as cursing at flaky computers, praying to God, rehearsing talks, plotting revenge, and pampering houseplants ( Crivelli & Fridlund, 2018 ; Fridlund, 1994 ; Fridlund & Duchaine, 1996 ). That people can be physically alone but essentially social was always true for letter writers, even though the communication was lagged. People who are passive viewers of others’ nonverbal interactions, whether in public or on social media or TV, assume the role of bystanders, and the interactants’ knowledge that there are bystanders (i.e., audiences) will affect their behavior.

In standard in-person social settings, however, NVC is a two-way street with interactants reciprocating appearance cues and a stream of nonverbal behavior. Such reciprocation does not require sustained interaction. It can happen in very brief encounters in which people simply share the same setting for just a few seconds. These are the unfocused interactions we reviewed previously. Even in these incidental interactions, the nonverbal behaviors are complex and open to multiple interpretations. A smile toward the boss in the office hallway may be meant as ingratiation, whereas that same smile may be flirtation toward a co-worker. Nor are the impacts of such behavior invariant. To the boss, the smile may be seen as ingratiation, friendliness, appeasement, or subversion. For the co-worker, it may be taken as friendliness, healthy interest, or sexual harassment.

Whether interactions are focused or unfocused in nature, the systems model views nonverbal interactions as goal-oriented behavioral exchanges shaped by interdependent perceptual, cognitive, and affective processes between partners ( Patterson, 2019 ). A failure to achieve goals increases the probability of behavioral adjustments or an early termination of the interaction ( Patterson, 2019 ). Thus, the systems model provides an interactive perspective on NVC that stands in stark contrast to the misconceptions discussed in this article.

The criticality of context

The four misconceptions we describe generally ignore the fact that all patterns of NVC are situated within specific interaction contexts. Two aspects of such contexts, physical environment and culture, deserve far more attention.

The physical environment sets the stage for interaction

We have previously detailed the role of the physical environment in our treatment of the misconception of personal space. The influence of the physical environment on social interaction is much broader, however. With some important exceptions (e.g., Altman, 1975 ; Barker, 1968 ; Oishi & Graham, 2010 ; Wicker, 1979 ), it has been sorely neglected in psychology generally, and in research and theory on NVC specifically ( Patterson & Quadflieg, 2016 ).

The physical environment shapes NVC in complex and sometimes subtle ways. The dynamics of behavior settings, a central construct in ecological psychology, illustrate these influences ( Wicker, 1979 ). Behavior settings are bounded geographical areas in which components such as the physical environment and behavioral norms collectively serve to facilitate ordered trajectories of events and behaviors over a limited period of time ( Wicker, 1979 ). In such settings, whether they are college classes, office meetings, political rallies, or religious services, most people behave in line with the physical and social constraints of the immediate environment rather than acting in ways that dramatize their personalities, attitudes, or motivations. Individuals migrating across settings change their behavior, both verbal and nonverbal, to suit the constraints and expectancies of the new settings. Furthermore, because people select settings and settings often select people, individuals who stray too far from the setting norms may be unwelcome ( Wicker, 1979 ).

Next, specific features of the physical environment also influence the give-and-take of NVC ( Patterson & Quadflieg, 2016 ). For example, the design and arrangement of furniture in a setting delimit the options for interpersonal distance and orientation in seated interactions. In turn, distance and orientation affect impressions and ease of communication within a group ( Altman, 1975 ; Patterson, 2021 ).

The measurable effects of subtle environmental features on NVC are discussed at length elsewhere ( Patterson & Quadflieg, 2016 ), but a few examples suffice. Dimmer ambient lighting decreases how much detail we see in others’ appearances, and this lack of distinctiveness may increase the probability of “they are all alike” stereotyping ( Cloutier & Macrae, 2007 ). Transparent glass barriers designed to separate or isolate people provide visual spaciousness but can decrease privacy ( Marquardt et al., 2015 ). Pleasant citrus scents can facilitate trust and reciprocity between strangers ( Liljenquist et al., 2010 ). Loud ambient noise is likely to drive people closer together so they can hear each other speak ( Lloyd et al., 2009 ). NVC can occur in absentia, because people who have left the scene leave physical traces and objects (e.g., the magazines they opened to read, or the food they failed to discard) that are informative about their attitudes and interests to those who remain ( Gosling et al., 2008 ; Webb et al., 1966 ).

Taken together, all these physical features shape the social interactions that occur amid them. Thus, the extent of this influence undercuts any mythical notion that nonverbal behaviors have invariant meanings across settings. A systems model will be required to understand current and upcoming video and metaverse modes of communication, which retain many of the features of in-person interaction but situate it in novel and sometimes otherworldly virtual settings.

Culture is the deep context

Just as human cultures have evolved their own languages, so too have they evolved their own systems of nonverbal displays. The diversity of modes of NVC in various cultures was a persistent theme in Darwin’s Expression ( Darwin, 1872 ). Furthermore, anthropologists have documented exquisite diversity in the social roles, traditions, rituals, and social behaviors of indigenous peoples worldwide. For instance, among Australian Aboriginals, some groups use body-painting to signify their bloodlines; others inflict scars to signify social status. Unlike Westerners, who generally prefer their conversations face-to-face, some indigenous groups (e.g., the Guugu Yimithirr of northern Queensland, the Tenejapan Mayans in southern Mexico), find this confrontational and prefer speaking side to side or front to back ( Levinson, 2003 ). Several Amazonian indigenous groups in Bolivia point using lip protrusion rather than hand or head movements ( Key, 1962 ; Reiter, 2014 ). As yet another example of human diversity, the Wolof of northwestern Senegal regulate taking turns in seated conversations in part by grabbing the feet of their interlocutors ( Meyer, 2014 ).

Finally, we return to the BET presumption that there are universal emotions that we all experience in the same way, even if culture intercedes to modify the supposed universal faces expressing them. There is ample cause to question this assumption as well. If our language concepts bear any relation to our experience, then continuing to argue the case for universal emotions will be tough indeed.

What are the roles of biology and culture in shaping nonverbal behaviors? In making culture only a thin veneer over a fundamental, overriding biology, BET drastically oversimplified the respective roles of both ( Lindquist et al., 2022 ). Certainly, there are examples that fit BET’s universalist mold. People the world over have propositional speech, bipedal gaits, and opposable thumbs, and they yawn when bored or tired. These commonalities are all part of our biological heritage. But people also show great diversity in their music, cuisine, and clothing, and these are all aspects of enculturation.

In equating universality with biology and diversity with culture, BET ignored the ready examples that ran counter to its presumptions. For example, people show great diversity in their blood hemoglobin types, proportions of fast versus slow striate muscle fibers, and types of earlobes, and this diversity is also part of our biological heritage. Yet all peoples have weddings, use money, and cook with fire, and these universals are distinctly products of culture. Such commonalities would be expected, because humanity seems to have been the product of one long migration in which useful cultural practices tagged along. Geographic and other barriers can result in relative cultural and reproductive isolation, however, and so different cultures, in accommodating to changed circumstances, can diverge both in their genotypes and their practices.

Indeed, natural selection and cultural selection are now recognized as ongoing intertwined processes. Commonalities or diversity can result from either. Assignments to either biology or culture are likely to be oversimplified, as the kinds of analyses required to make those assignments—molecular genetic analyses of cultural phenotypes—are complex and do not admit of easy answers themselves ( Fridlund & Russell, in press ). The upshot is that when we examine how different cultural groups communicate nonverbally, we should not presume either commonality or diversity; we should be equally prepared to find either. Cross-cultural research, we suggest, should proceed in such a data-driven manner, without Western theory-driven preconceptions about likely findings. This will lead to a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of how diverse cultures communicate nonverbally.

We have reviewed four common misconceptions about NVC—that people (a) communicate using body language; (b) have a stable personal space; (c) use universal, evolved, iconic, categorical facial displays to express underlying categorical emotions; and (d) give off, and can detect, reliable telltale clues of deception.

We are not making an indictment of the field of NVC, which has made great strides based on good science. Rather, we present a focused critique of certain presumptions related to NVC that persist despite weak evidential bases and remain pernicious influences on professional practices, research conduct, and lay understandings of the field.

To counter these misconceptions and help prevent new ones, we propose a systems approach to NVC that centers on the interrelations of nonverbal cues and behaviors, rather than their roles in isolation; emphasizes that communication is fundamentally interactive, not unilateral; and acknowledges that the context of communication must include the form of the immediate physical environment and the interactants’ cultural frames of reference.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Ruth Leys for insightful comments.

1. These three features are most relevant to our exposition, but they do not exhaust other aspects that linguists find in formal languages, such as arbitrary relationships between words and referents (onomatopoeia being a prominent exception), combinatoriality (the ability to make new words from existing ones), and precision translatability, both among languages and in the transformation of expression from speech to writing and signing (e.g., Bouchard, 2013 ).

2. Gestures such as the “OK” sign, the extended third finger, the tongue inserted in the cheek, and the exaggerated nose scrunch act as iconic substitutes for speech. They function as part of language ( Goldin-Meadow & Alibali, 2013 ), with more than 90% occurring in the presence of speech and facilitating speakers’ production of speech and listeners’ comprehension of its content ( Cartmill & Goldin-Meadow, 2016 ; Krauss, 1988). Thus, given their linguistic nature, one that includes many aspects of formal languages ( McNeill, 1985 ), such gestures might uniquely qualify as body language, but they are not among the nonverbal behaviors that usually comprise NVC.

3. Even here, some animals are 100% dog but have three legs (they are “tripawed”), and African Basenjis do not bark. Other (English) exceptions to 1:1 mappings of words onto meanings include homonyms in vocal speech (like rain , rein , and reign ) and polysemic words in speech and writing (like pen and mean ). Dog itself is polysemic, as one can “dog” (or hound) another by relentlessly following him, and doing so makes one a “dog” (“You ain’t nothin’ but a hound dog”). Polysemy is usually rapidly disambiguated by a word’s context. Thus, the meaning of “Do you have a pen?” differs depending on whether the query is followed by “I need to sign my check” versus “I need a place to put my cattle.”

4. Discussion of the relative left-hemisphere predominance in speech should not minimize the right hemisphere’s parallel involvement. Recent data suggest that the left hemisphere may govern speech timing and sound transitions (e.g., consonants to vowels), with right-hemisphere mediation of spectral aspects of speech, such as intonation and prosody ( Floegel et al., 2020 ).

5. Searches were conducted on June 15, 2021 ( https://www.proquest.com ), updating earlier findings by Sommer (2002) .

6. This unprecedented stable interpersonal boundary took the form of the “6-foot rule” mandated by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in indoor spaces, along with the “1-meter rule” adopted by the World Health Organization and the “2-meter rule” adopted in the United Kingdom. These fixed boundaries were ultimately found insufficient to stop the spread of COVID ( Bazant & Bush, 2021 ).

7. Exceptions occur amid longstanding antagonisms among family or disparate social-group members. Spatial arrangements dependent on group identities also occur in caste or monarchic systems, in the self-segregation of racial and ethnic groups, among different age groups of students, in seating and section classes of theater-goers or airline and cruise passengers, and with people or groups that require protection.

8. Ekman and colleagues explained the departures from universality by claiming that the training and traditions within various cultures resulted in on-the-fly modifications of the supposedly natural and biological faces ( Ekman et al., 1969 ; Ekman & Friesen, 1969 ). Such display rules , an idea that originated with Wundt (1894) , were invoked ad hoc to explain low matching rates but never the high ones, and the experimental procedures and evidence used to support the operation of display rules were incompletely reported and fatally flawed ( Fridlund, 1994 ; Leys, 2017 ).

9. Scarantino et al. (2021) cast facial displays as appeals, but by signaling probable action the displays likely function more as nudges.

10. Since the introduction of BECV ( Fridlund, 1991b , 1994 ), numerous theories have been proposed to counter or modify BET by ratifying BECV’s focus on our facial displays as functional and interactional. Recent examples of these approaches are Elfenbein’s dialect theory ( Elfenbein et al., 2007 ), Keltner and Oatley’s (2022) social functional theory , Niedenthal’s social-functional framework ( Martin et al., 2017 ), Scarantino’s (2017) theory of affective pragmatics ( Scarantino, 2017 ), and Scarantino et al.’s (2021) appeal theory .

11. This is not farfetched, especially as agents of intelligence services such as the U. S. Central Intelligence Agency use interrogation techniques that are otherwise unavailable to the public. We also note that intelligence services have an interest in claiming they can spot deception just to intimidate guilty suspects into confessing. From this admittedly dark vantage point, the negative findings on detecting deception, though accurate, may give comfort to the guilty.

12. This lack of discriminant validity undercuts recent efforts to apply computer vision and machine learning to identify deception nonverbally, using training sets composed of videotapes of people known to be lying (e.g., Carissimi et al., 2018 ). Again, people may show certain nonverbal behaviors while lying, but not necessarily because they are lying, and the evidence suggests that the same behaviors occur outside of lying.

13. Fridlund (2021) contrasted our everyday assumption of transparency with the unpleasant fact that most people are by and large inscrutable, and he quoted Malcolm Gladwell in Talking to Strangers ( 2019 , p. 162): “Transparency is a myth—an idea we’ve picked up from watching too much television and reading too many novels.”

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10.1177_17456916221148142-img1.jpg

Transparency

Action Editor: Tina M. Lowrey

Editor: Klaus Fiedler

Author Contributions

M. L. Patterson, A. J. Fridlund, and C. Crivelli conceived, prepared, reviewed, and edited the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript for submission.

The author(s) declared that there were no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article.

IMAGES

Nonverbal Communication Essay Sample
Non-Verbal Communication Outline
Essay Topic: Nonverbal Communication by Curt's Journey
📗 Essay Example on Nonverbal Communication: Types & Meanings
Nonverbal Communication and Components of Professional Appearance
Nonverbal communication theory and application

COMMENTS

APA handbook of nonverbal communication.
The APA Handbook of Nonverbal Communication provides scholarly reviews of state-of-the-art knowledge in the areas of nonverbal communication and nonverbal behaviors. It includes an entire section devoted to new and improved methodologies and technologies that allow for the recording, capture, and analysis of nonverbal behaviors. The primary audience for the book is researchers in the area, as ...
Nonverbal Behavior and Communication in the Workplace: A Review and an
Throughout the paper, we offer ideas for future research as well as information on methods to study nonverbal behavior in lab and field contexts. We hope our review will encourage organizational scholars to develop a deeper understanding of how nonverbal behavior influences the social world of organizations.
Nonverbal Communication: An Essential Skill in the Workplace
The following paper will examine the major types of nonverbal communication and their role in day to day human interaction in the workplace. It will examine the ways that understanding of the meanings of nonverbal cues can assist in both interpretation and conveyance of unspoken messages, and the role that space, the environment and other physical factors play in successful communication.
Nonverbal Communication
Abstract. The field of nonverbal communication (NVC) has a long history involving many cue modalities, including face, voice, body, touch, and interpersonal space; different levels of analysis, including normative, group, and individual differences; and many substantive themes that cross from psychology into other disciplines.
Four Misconceptions About Nonverbal Communication
The goal of this article is to examine critically what we consider four central misconceptions about NVC—namely, that people communicate using body language; that they have a stable personal space; that they use universal, evolved, iconic, categorical facial displays to express underlying emotions; and that they give off, and can detect, dependable telltale clues to deception.
PDF Nonverbal Behavior and Communication in the Workplace
and nonverbal vocalic to how the message is conveyed (e.g., voice tone, accent, pitch; Hargie, 2011). Thus, nonverbal communication is understood as "the sending and receiving of thoughts and feelings via nonverbal behavior" (Ambady & Weisbuch, 2010: 465). Any nonverbal behavior has the potential to communicate meaning (Burgoon et al., 201 1).
(PDF) Nonverbal Communication
The present article discusses models of nonverbal communication and then summarizes findings with regard to the nonverbal communication of emotions, via the face, voice, posture, touch, and gaze.
(PDF) NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION: AN INFLUENTIAL TOOL FOR ...
non-verbal communication in effective management. It examines the case specifically by keep ing under r eview the f our. areas of nonverbal communication: kinesics, proxemics, vocalics, and ch ...
113 Nonverbal Communication Essay Topic Ideas & Examples
113 Nonverbal Communication Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. Nonverbal communication is a crucial aspect of human interaction, as it can convey just as much information as verbal communication. From facial expressions to body language, nonverbal cues can reveal a person's emotions, intentions, and attitudes. In this article, we will explore 113 ...
100 Nonverbal Communication Essay Topic Ideas & Examples
The ability to correctly use nonverbal signs during a dialogue helps to position people and interest them in an idea or project. The Use of All Senses in Nonverbal Communication. In these settings, using all the senses can become a key prescription in assessing the importance of nonverbal communication.
Nonverbal Communication
The field of nonverbal communication (NVC) has a long history involving many cue modalities, including face, voice, body, touch, and interpersonal space; different levels of analysis, including normative, group, and individual differences; and many substantive themes that cross from psychology into other disciplines. In this review, we focus on NVC as it pertains to individuals and social ...
(PDF) Nonverbal Communication
Abstract. Nonverbal communication is hard to define but is often said to be all those modes of communicating other than words or a parallel way to process social stimuli alongside language cues ...
Nonverbal Communication
Nonverbal communication can substitute for verbal communication in a variety of ways. Nonverbal communication can convey a great deal of meaning when verbal communication is not effective because of language barriers. Language barriers are present when a person has not yet learned to speak or loses the ability to speak.
Beyond Words: Using Nonverbal Communication Data in Research to Enhance
Also from Sage. CQ Library Elevating debate opens in new tab; Sage Data Uncovering insight opens in new tab; Sage Business Cases Shaping futures opens in new tab; Sage Campus Unleashing potential opens in new tab; Sage Knowledge Multimedia learning resources opens in new tab; Sage Research Methods Supercharging research opens in new tab; Sage Video Streaming knowledge opens in new tab
Nonverbal behaviour as communication: Approaches, issues, and research
The chapter stresses that nonverbal behaviour, as a communication skill, is usefully understood when discussed in role- and setting-defined contexts. The skill is based upon evidence picked up directly or indirectly from the environment, and it is used for the attempted achievement of whatever issue may be required at the time of the ...
APA Citation & Formatting
Nonverbal Communication. Nonverbal Communications; Reference & Background; Communications Research; ... APA style also provides guidelines for paper formatting. APA 7th Edition. Use this link for APA tips, examples by format, information on in-text citations & more! ... Center for Excellence in Writing; Communication Arts Studio; Computer Labs ...
(PDF) Nonverbal communication in the workplace
ward definition might read: An y form of communication that does not specifically. use words is considered nonv erbal. This definition includes a speaker ' s vocal tones. and inflections, but ...
Non-Verbal Communication: Ideas For Your Research Paper
Non-verbal communication is an extremely important form of communication that all humans use. There are many forms of non-verbal communication that you can write about, and in this article we will discuss some of the best non-verbal communication topics for you to research about. Paper Format. Before we get on to the best topics for you to base ...
PDF Nonverbal Communication in Intercultural Communication: A Case Study of
The purpose of this research paper is to examine the role of nonverbal communication in intercultural communication with a focus on the manifestation of nonverbal communication in the context of lying. The significance of this research paper is to help individuals to better understand nonverbal communication and its impact on intercultural ...
Beyond Words: Using Nonverbal Communication Data in Research to Enhance
The evaluation of nonverbal communication and linguistic expression combined has opened avenues for neurolinguistic research on aphasia (e.g., Loveland et al., 1997; McNeill, 1985), and a wealth of information can be gleaned from nonverbal communication of autistic children. Researchers have credited assessment of nonverbal communication as being
The Impact of Nonverbal Communication in Organizations: A Survey of
Recommendations for improved communication in businesses included paying more at tention to nonverbal cues, especially the facial expressions, engaging in more eye con tact, and probing for more information when verbal and nonverbal cues are discrepant.
Four Misconceptions About Nonverbal Communication
We have reviewed four common misconceptions about NVC—that people (a) communicate using body language; (b) have a stable personal space; (c) use universal, evolved, iconic, categorical facial displays to express underlying categorical emotions; and (d) give off, and can detect, reliable telltale clues of deception.

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Nonverbal Communication

Similar articles

Publication types

Related information

Other Literature Sources

113 Nonverbal Communication Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

100 Nonverbal Communication Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Annual Review of Psychology

Most Read This Month

4 Nonverbal Communication

4.1 Principles and Functions of Nonverbal Communication

Nonverbal Communication Conveys Important Information

Nonverbal Communication Is More Involuntary than Verbal

Nonverbal Communication Is More Ambiguous

Nonverbal Communication Is More Credible

4.2 Functions of Nonverbal Communication

Nonverbal Communication Conveys Meaning

Nonverbal Communication Influences Others

Nonverbal Communication Regulates Conversational Flow

Nonverbal Communication Affects Relationships

Nonverbal Communication Expresses Our Identities

4.3 Types of Nonverbal Communication

Head Movements and Posture

Eye Contact

Facial Expressions

Proxemic Distances

Public Space

Social Space

Personal Space

Intimate Space

Personal Presentation and Environment

4.4 Nonverbal Communication Competence

Guidelines for Sending Nonverbal Messages

Nonverbal Communication is Multichannel

Nonverbal Communication Affects Our Interactions

Nonverbal Communication Regulates Conversations

Nonverbal Communication Relates to Listening

Nonverbal Communication Relates to Impression Management

Guidelines for Interpreting Nonverbal Messages

Recognize that Certain Nonverbal Signals are Related

Read Nonverbal Cues in Context

Share This Book

Nonverbal Communication

Simple Citing

apa checks & balances

Instruct: Citations

Information

Hubert Library, Biscayne Bay Campus

Directions: Green Library, MMC

Directions: Hubert Library, BBC

Research Paper Writing Help

Research Paper Topics On Non-Verbal Communication

Original Tricks

Writing Help

Four Misconceptions About Nonverbal Communication

Alan J. Fridlund

Carlos Crivelli

Misconception No. 1: We Communicate Using Body Language

Some key features of formal language versus body language

The power of the situation

NVC elaborated

Misconception No. 1: Conclusion

Misconception No. 2: People Have a Stable Personal Space

Personal space versus interpersonal distance

Problems with personal space

Misconception No. 2: Conclusion

Misconception No. 3: We Have Basic Emotions That Are “Read Out” by Universal, Evolved, Iconic, Categorical Facial Expressions

The doctrine of evolved universality

Acknowledging cultural diversity

Do faces really express emotion?

What do faces really do?

Misconception No. 3: Conclusion

Misconception No. 4: The Body Never Lies

Bodily movements and deception

Bodily deception and pseudoscience

Facial deception: discordant displays and microexpressions

Discordant displays

Microexpressions