MESSAGE FEATURES Nonverbal Influence 23 Nonverbal Influence

M E S S A G E F E AT U R E SN o n v e r b a l I n f l u e n c e

23

Nonverbal Influence

J U D E E K . B U R G O O NN O RA H E . D U N B A RC H R I S S E G R I N

When asked, “How do you persuade oth-ers?,” virtually everyone’s first thoughts

turn to the verbal messages he or she creates.And yet, if asked how others are persuaded, aperson can, on a moment’s reflection, generatean extensive list of nonverbal ways in whichothers are effectively moved to embrace or re-sist new attitudes and actions. Everything fromthe use of rewards and punishments to adver-tising’s seductive use of imagery comes tomind. It is these latter forms of “hidden persua-sion”—the often overlooked but neverthelesspotent nonverbal means of influence—that arethe subject of this chapter.

Due to space limitations, we limit our pre-sentation to theories and research evidencepertaining to three classes of nonverbal appealsfor influencing others: (a) appeals to attrac-tion, similarity, intimacy, and trust; (b) domi-nance and power displays; and (c) expectancy

signaling and expectancy violations. The firstcategory relies on establishing a favorableinterpersonal relationship or fostering cred-ibility and so could be related to a host oftheories on interpersonal attraction, iden-tification, relational communication, self-presentation, and image management. Herewe consider Heider’s balance theory, Duck’ssimilarity theory, Byrne’s attraction theory,Anderson’s cognitive valence theory, andGiles’s communication accommodation the-ory, although other theories of attraction andrelational development, such as uncertaintyreduction theory (Berger, 1987) and socialpenetration theory (Taylor & Altman, 1987),could also be applied to the understanding ofnonverbal behavior and favorable interper-sonal relations. The second category, that ofdominance and power displays, is likewisebroad enough to include not only matters of

445

AUTHORS’ NOTE: This research was partially supported by funding from the U.S. Army Research Institute(Contract DASW01-98-K-009). The views, opinions, and findings in this report are those of the authors and shouldnot be construed as official Department of the Army positions, policies, or decisions.

D:\Books\DILLARD\1ST SET-thMonday, March 04, 2002 10:57:45 AM

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

credibility and image management but alsolearning theory principles of rewards, threats,and punishments as well as ethological andorganizational theories of power hierarchies.Here we center on social exchange theory,Lawler’s bilateral deterrence theory, expecta-tion states theory, and Rogers’s relational con-trol model. The final category encompasses aconstellation of theories concerned with howinterpersonal expectancies are formed andsignaled and the effects of confirming or vio-lating those expectations. Here we considerexpectancy signaling models and expectancyviolations theory.

Within each category, we identify what arethought to be the explanatory mechanismsthat work directly or indirectly to effectuatepersuasion and compliance. Because the mat-ter of social skills tends to permeate or under-gird much of the nonverbal influence litera-ture, we include thoughts on the importanceof nonverbal skill to communicator compe-tence and successful influence and concludewith suggestions for directions that future re-search might profitably take.

APPEALS TO ATTRACTIONAND SIMILARITY

Social scientists have for a long time beenaware of the fact that physically attractivesources are more persuasive than their moreordinary-looking peers. Source attractivenessenhances persuasion independent of argumentquality (Norman, 1976), expertise (Chaiken,1979), and trustworthiness (Norman, 1976).Similarity between a source and target is also astrong determinant of attraction (Newcomb,1961). Carl Hovland argued that one of thethree main classes of stimuli that determinethe success of persuasive attempts is “observ-able characteristics of the perceived source ofthe communication” (Hovland, Janis, & Kelly,1953, p. 11). Of those observable characteris-

tics, ones that create perceptions of attrac-tiveness and similarity are among the mostpowerful. Thus, nonverbal cues that promoteor signify attraction and/or similarity havegreat potential to influence others.

Definitions

Attraction is a positive attitude or predis-position to respond to another in a positiveway (Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Berscheid &Walster, 1978). These responses can entailpositive appraisals of the target’s qualities andattributes, positive emotions associated withthat target, and positive behaviors enactedtoward the target (Berscheid & Reis, 1998).Given the nature of these outcomes, it is clearthat persuasion and compliance are alsoamong the responses to which people are pre-disposed when attracted to another person.Similarity variously refers to sharing attitudes,background, values, knowledge, or commonstyles in common. Because theories of attrac-tion and similarity typically invoke each other,the two constructs are inevitably linked.

Theoretical Perspectives

A number of theories explain how and whyattraction and similarity enhance persuasive-ness. According to Heider’s (1958) balancetheory, people are motivated to hold consis-tent attitudes in their point of view towardother people and toward certain attitudinalobjects. People tend to like others who exhibitsigns of similarity because it is reinforcing totheir own self-concept and helps them to pre-dict and understand similar others. Thus, peo-ple should desire to hold an attitude towarda particular stimulus that is similar to that ofa liked other or dissimilar to that of a dis-liked other. In the review that follows, weshow that many nonverbal behaviors that are

446 MESSAGE FEATURES



instrumental in creating a sense of liking canalso enhance a source’s persuasiveness. Bal-ance theory offers one theoretical account ofwhy this may be the case. If a source’s non-verbal behaviors are immediate and like-able, we may be particularly motivated tohold attitudes similar to those that the sourceexpresses.

Duck’s (1994) similarity theory also ex-plains how similarity and attraction may beinfluential in persuasive processes. Duck ar-gued that the concept of similarity has fourcomponents that are the amalgamation of twodimensions: that which is evaluative versusnonevaluative and that which is undeclaredversus declared. The evaluative/nonevaluativedimension references facts versus attitudestoward and opinions about those facts. Theundeclared/declared dimension refers to back-ground similarities of which two people areaware versus those of which they are unaware.Duck (1998) highlighted the role of nonverbalbehavior in making similarities “declared” bystating, “We never see the internal states orattitudes of other persons directly, so we onlyinfer them from . . . nonverbal and verbalbehavior(s). . . . Because of this, the two peo-ple’s readings of each other’s nonverbalbehavior will be critical to this inference pro-cess and highly significant in acquaintance”(p. 73). Nonverbal behaviors are essentiallyviewed as a fundamental means by which peo-ple infer similarity with another person. Rec-ognition of this similarity, in turn, fuels attrac-tion and enhances the ability to influence.

Byrne’s (1971) similarity theory states ageneral “law of attraction” in that attractiontoward an individual is thought to be a linearfunction of attitudinal similarity with that per-son. As Byrne (1961) pointed out, “Any timeanother person offers us validation by indicat-ing that his percepts and concepts are congru-ent with ours, it constitutes a rewarding inter-action and, hence, one element in forming apositive relationship” (p. 713). As already

noted, attitudes toward those with whom weinteract and ideas about which we interact areoften conveyed nonverbally. According toByrne’s theory, awareness of these similaritiesis strongly associated with attraction towarda source. Nonverbal behaviors may convey asense of attitudinal similarity between thesource and target, reinforcing feelings ofattraction and a predisposition to be per-suaded.Additional theories that can explainthe role of nonverbal behavior in creatingattraction and possibly enhancing persuasive-ness are the class of dyadic interaction theo-ries such as cognitive valence theory (CVT)(Andersen, 1985, 1999), interpersonal adap-tation theory (IAT) (Burgoon, Stern, &Dillman, 1995), and communication accom-modation theory (CAT) (Giles, Coupland, &Coupland, 1991). The first two theories ex-plain reactions to changes in nonverbal behav-ior during the course of an interaction. Forexample, CVT predicts that an increase in thenonverbal immediacy of a source, if noticed,creates some degree of arousal. This arousalthen gets interpreted against a series of cogni-tive schemata related to factors such as cul-tural appropriateness, relational appropriate-ness, and personal predispositions. If theinteraction has a generally positive tone, andif the evaluation of the change in behavior ispositive, then the experiencedarousal will bepositively valenced, creating a good feelingabout the source and the interaction. Thesepositively valenced encounters are predictedto lead to positive relational outcomes such aspositive affect, a reciprocal display of greaternonverbal immediacy, and increased rela-tional closeness. One can predict a predispo-sition to agree or comply with the source asan additional positive relational outcome.CAT makes similar predictions. At its core isthe assumption that people respond posi-tively to others who adopt a nonverbal, par-ticularly vocalic style that is similar to theirown. Listeners perceive nonverbal behavior

Nonverbal Influence 447



that is similar to their own as more attractiveand pleasant. As speakers adjust their behav-ioral style to one that is similar to targets, thetargets are expected to respond positivelydespite being unaware of this accommodationon the part of the source. According to CAT,sources who adjust their behavioral style to beincreasingly similar to targets should be per-ceived as more attractive and more persuasive.

Each of these theories focuses on the roleof similarity and attractiveness in producingpositive relational outcomes. Chaiken (1979,1986) developed several explanations fortheir positive influence on persuasive out-comes. First, attractive people are thought toprovide a sense of social reward. Receiverswant to be with and be like attractive and simi-lar others.

Second, source attractiveness triggers heu-ristic processing, whereby people mindlesslytend to agree with those who are seen as like-able. Perceived attractiveness is associatedwith a halo effect (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster,1972) such that receivers ascribe a variety ofother positive characteristics, including per-suasiveness, to attractive sources. The beliefthat “what is beautiful is good” is a perva-sive, if tacit, stereotype that is triggered byboth physical beauty and attractive voices(Zuckerman, Hodgins, & Miyake, 1990).This may be one reason why attractive sourcesget more offers for help when in need(Benson, Karabenic, & Lerner, 1976), earnhigher salaries (Hammermesh & Biddle,1994), and are more able to change the atti-tudes of an audience (Chaiken, 1979) as com-pared to their less attractive peers. Becauseattractive people are generally likeable, thecognitive heuristics of many receivers predis-pose them to agree with messages from attrac-tive sources.

Finally, some evidence suggests that attrac-tive sources possess better social skills thando less attractive sources (Chaiken, 1979;Feingold, 1992). These heightened skills may

allow attractive sources of be more effec-tive and comfortable in persuasive contexts.This influence of social skills on persuasive-ness presages the impact of another type ofappeal—dominance—in that the portrait ofthe demeanor of socially skilled individualscorresponds closely with the profile of inter-personal dominance behaviors (Burgoon &Dunbar, 1998). Socially skilled individualsconvey confidence, friendliness, dynamism,poise, and other favorable attributes throughtheir communicative behavior, and these be-haviors are seen as more dominant in interper-sonal contexts (Burgoon & Dunbar, 2000).Thus, if dominant individuals appear moresocially skilled and socially skilled individualsare seen as more attractive, then dominantnonverbal behavior combines power and at-traction, making it a doubly effective way toinfluence others.

Nonverbal Cues of Attractiveness,Attraction, and Similarity

There is good reason to suspect that the re-lationship between nonverbal behavior andpersuasiveness is mediated by the sense of at-traction and similarity that certain behaviorscreate. In many interactions, nonverbal be-haviors simultaneously reflect a motivationto create a sense of intimacy and commonground as well as a motivation to exert controland influence over the receiver (Burgoon &Saine, 1978; Patterson, 1983). Research evi-dence shows that the same behaviors thatoften signal attraction and similarity betweena source and receiver will also enhance theeffectiveness of persuasive appeals, perhapsby virtue of promoting the receiver’s sense ofidentification with the sender or creating aclose interpersonal relationship on which thesender can draw. What follows is a sampling ofthat research evidence regarding which non-verbal behaviors make the sender appear more




attractive, signal the sender’s attraction forthe receiver, or signify similarity between thesender and receiver. Among the cues re-viewed, physical appearance, artifacts, gaze,and proximity may serve not only as behaviorsthat enhance attraction and similarity duringan interaction but also as pre-interactional ele-ments in that they may draw people together.In this manner, nonverbal cues may predis-pose people to interact and be susceptible toinfluence even before the first word is uttered.

Kinesics. Kinesics relates to all aspects of“body language”—movements of the head,face, eyes, limbs, and trunk—as a means ofcommunication. Among the most powerfulindicators of attraction are eye contact andmutual gaze. Gaze increases as a function ofliking toward the target (Exline, 1963). Eyecontact is both encoded (Rubin, 1970) and de-coded (Kleinke, Bustos, Meeker, & Staneski,1973) as a sign of attraction and relationalpositivity, and its absence is also a good indica-tor of relational distress (Noller, 1980).

Gaze has a very reliable effect of increasingcompliance rates when compared to thosewho make requests while averting their gaze(Segrin, 1993). In persuasive contexts, theincreased use of gaze has been associated withgetting more rides while hitchhiking (Snyder,Grether, & Keller, 1974), having greater suc-cess in getting change from others to make aphone call (Brockner, Pressman, Cabitt, &Moran, 1982), getting targets to take pam-phlets (Kleinke & Singer, 1979), and havingsuccess in requesting donations to a charity(Bull & Robinson, 1981). Given the powerfulconnection between gaze and attraction, it isplausible to assume that in many of thesecases, gazing confederates were seen as moreattractive by targets than were those whoaverted eye contact given that gaze aversionsends a message of disinterest (Burgoon,Manusov, Mineo, & Hale, 1985).

Vocalics. There are a number of para-linguistic (vocal) variables that are associatedwith attraction between a source and target orthat create such a sense of attraction. For ex-ample, those who speak at a relatively fast ratewith short silent pauses are seen as havingmore favorable attributes than are those whospeak at a slower rate (Siegman, 1987). Silentpauses, filled pauses, and speech hesitationsall are negatively correlated with listeners’ at-traction toward speakers (Pope & Siegman,1966). Some of these same behaviors, andthose that are manipulated to create “warm”interviewer conditions (Siegman, 1987), arealso those paralinguistic behaviors that appearto enhance speakers’ persuasiveness.

A fast speech rate has been shown to be ef-fective in gaining compliance, especially whenrecipients havegood decoding skills (Buller &Aune, 1988; cf. Buller, LePoire, Aune, & Eloy,1992; Miller, Maruyama, Beaber, & Valone,1976; Woodall & Burgoon, 1983). A request-er’s “tone of voice” may also have an impacton compliance. Buller and Burgoon (1986)employed interviewers who had either pleas-ant, neutral, or hostile voices. Participantsclassified as good decoders volunteered morehours of their time to requesters with a pleas-ant rather than neutral voice. On the otherhand, participants classified as poor decodersvolunteered more time to neutral speakers.Hall (1980) also found that good decoders ofnonverbal communication were more sensi-tive to vocal cues of pleasantness and expres-siveness and were more likely to be persuadedwhen these cues were intentionally manipu-lated. The association between perceived per-suasiveness and greater vocal pleasantness,which is comprised of variables such as flu-ency and pitch variety, was also demonstratedby Burgoon, Birk, and Pfau (1990).

Proxemics and Haptics. Proxemics refers tomessages entailing the use of distancing andspace; haptics refers to nonverbal messages of




touch. It is well-known that friends and inti-mate partners use less personal space in theirinteractions than do strangers (Aiello, 1987;Hayduk, 1983). People generally select closerinteracting distances with others who are per-ceived to be attractive, friendly, and positivelyreinforcing (Byrne, Ervin, & Lamberth, 1970;Gifford, 1982). Likewise, touch functions toconvey liking, affiliation, love, sexuality, andcomfort toward receivers (Heslin & Alper,1983; Jones, 1994). Touch plays such a potentrole in communicating and establishing inti-macy between the encoder and decoder that itis difficult to imagine a close, particularly ro-mantic relationship entirely devoid of touch.It is therefore understandable that closer per-sonal space and touch tend to be associatedwith increased persuasiveness.

Researchers have asked confederates to ap-proach targets at either “close” (e.g., 1-2 feet)or “far” (e.g., 4-5 feet) distances while re-questing behaviors such as volunteering toparticipate in a study (Baron, 1978; Baron &Bell, 1976), signing a petition (Buller, 1987),giving a confederate a nickel in exchange forfive pennies (Ernest & Cooper, 1974), andcompleting a survey (Glick, DeMorest, &Hotze, 1988). Results generally indicate thatcompliance rates are inversely related to thedistance between the source and target of therequest (Segrin, 1993). It should be noted thatsources who possess high reward value (e.g.,wealthy, physically attractive, well-dressed)are better able to violate targets’ personalspace and still produce positive effects on tar-gets’ compliance (Burgoon & Aho, 1982).

The effectiveness of touch has been dem-onstrated in a number of field experimentswhere senders lightly touched, or did nottouch, receivers while making requests. Suchrequests have included getting participants toreturn dimes that they took from a phonebooth (Brockner et al., 1982; Kleinke, 1977),volunteering time for charity (Goldman,Kiyohara, & Pfannensteil, 1984), taking and

mailing in a card (Kurklen & Kassinove, 1991),helping to score questionnaires (Patterson,Powell, & Lenihan, 1986), and signing peti-tions (Willis & Hamm, 1980). In all cases,behavioral compliance was increased by theuse of light touch.

The use of touch has also been linked withpositive attitude changes toward sources. Pa-tients develop more positive attitudes towardnurses who touch them as compared to nurseswho limit their interactions to just verbalbehavior (Aguilera, 1967). Waiters and wait-resses who touch restaurant patrons, productdemonstrators who touch potential custom-ers, and greeters who touch shoppers as theyenter a store all are regarded more positivelyby receivers than are their counterparts whodo not touch (Hornik, 1992). The effects oftouch on attraction to the source might evenoperate outside of conscious awareness. Fisher,Rytting, and Heslin (1976) had library clerkstouch, or not touch, patrons’ palms whenreturning their library cards during bookcheckouts. Those who were touched laterrated the library clerk more favorably than didthose who were not touched, yet only 57% ofthe participants in the touch condition wereeven aware that they had been touched by thelibrary clerk.

Physical Appearance and Artifacts. A finalset of cues combines physical appearance withpersonal artifacts. Some evidence suggeststhat sources dressed similarly to their targetsare more persuasive than those dressed differ-ently (Hensley, 1981). Hensley (1981) hadwell-dressed and casually dressed solicitorsseek compliance at an airport where targetsare typically well-dressed and at a bus stopwhere targets are typically more casuallydressed. As predicted, the well-dressed solici-tor was more successful in the airport, and thecasually dressed solicitor was more successfulwith those at the bus stop. This finding sug-gests that people may be inclined to comply




with sources who are dressed similarly to theself, possibly through the mechanism of iden-tification. For instance, all social groups—from street gangs, to work groups, to entirecultures—rely on clothing, insignias, owner-ship of certain brand-name products, and thelike to symbolize their in-group status. Inother cases, high-status clothing, attractivefacial features, and conventional appearancehave been shown to increase persuasiveness(Bickman, 1971, 1974; Brownlow & Zebro-witz, 1990; Pallak, 1983; Pallak, Murroni, &Koch, 1983). In these latter cases, attractiveappearance may be persuasive in itself, or itmay relate to violations of expectations (dis-cussed in a later section).

APPEALS TO DOMINANCE,POWER, AND STATUS

Power, dominance, and status by their verynature imply influence. It necessarily followsthat nonverbal indicators of these relationalstates may profoundly affect the ability to per-suade another. These behaviors may exert di-rect influence independent of what is actuallysaid. By defining the nature of the interper-sonal relationship between two parties, theymay also frame verbal messages in a way thatenhances or diminishes the likelihood of theiracceptance. For example, dominant individu-als are judged as more credible than submis-sive individuals (Burgoon & Dunbar, 1998).It seems likely that dominant behaviors fitinto a schema for successful communication,one that combines gestalt judgments of com-petence and credibility with particular com-municative routines that qualify as dominant.Dominant interaction also may be effectivebecause it shares key ingredients with sociallyskilled performances, enabling dominant in-dividuals to influence and even deceive others(Riggio, Tucker, & Throckmorton, 1988).

Definitions

Power, dominance, and status have been de-fined in numerous, often synonymous, waysby a variety of theorists and researchers (seefor example, Berger, 1994; Burgoon, Johnson,& Koch, 1998; Winter, 1973). To achieve con-ceptual clarity and to eliminate confusion, how-ever, these concepts should be differentiated.

Most definitions of power contain a com-mon theme of the ability to influence others,exercised through a variety of resources orpower bases (Burgoon et al., 1998; Foa &Foa, 1974; French & Raven, 1959; Henley,1995). Power is thus a perceptual variable thatinvolves the potential for control or influencethat may or may not be manifested behavior-ally. Among the different power bases thathave been delineated and have implicationsfor nonverbal communication are the fiveidentified by French and Raven (1959). Theseare reward power and coercive power, whichrepresent a person’s right to reward and pun-ish respectively; legitimate power, which ispower that comes from holding a high-statusposition that is sanctioned by society; referentpower, which is the power that results whenothers admire and emulate a person; and ex-pert power, which is derived from havingexpertise in a needed field. Compliance resultswhen a target accepts influence in order togain rewards or avoid punishments, identifica-tion results when a target wishes to be emulateor be identified with an influential other (i.e.,from the exercise of referent power), andinternalization results when messages are con-sistent with the target’s value system, oftendue to reliance on expert or legitimate power(Berger, 1994; Kelman, 1958). Nonverbal cuesthat emphasize rewards or punishments, thatunderscore one’s legitimate role or expertise,or that attempt to build identification bycementing interpersonal affinity are drawingon principles of power.




Whereas power may be latent, dominance isnecessarily manifest. It refers to context- andrelationship-dependent interactional patternsin which one actor’s assertion of control is metby acquiescence from another (Burgoon et al.,1998; Rogers-Millar & Millar, 1979). Al-though dominance elsewhere may be viewedas a personality trait, in the context of commu-nication, it is a dynamic state that reflects acombination of individual temperament andsituational features that demand, release, orencourage dominant behavior (Aries, Gold, &Weigel, 1983; Burgoon & Dunbar, 2000). Un-like domineeringness, which refers to individ-ual attempts to control the interaction, domi-nance refers to the acceptance of the controlattempts by the interactional partner; thatis, it is defined by the sequence of “one-up”and “one-down” acts between two parties(Rogers-Millar & Millar, 1979). Dominanceis thus both behavioral and relational.

Status refers to one’s position in a sociallyagreed-on hierarchy that is prevalent in alltypes of societies, including nonhuman ones(Lips, 1991). High status often fosters domi-nance and power because one is endowed withlegitimate authority, but it does not guaran-tee the exercise of power or the display ofdominant behavior (Burgoon, Buller, &Woodall, 1996). However, dominance is un-likely to be effective in a task group unless amember acts from a legitimated status posi-tion (Ridgeway, Diekema, & Johnson, 1995;Ridgeway, Johnson, & Diekema, 1994). Thus,status, dominance, and power are intertwined.


One theory that emphasizes the importanceof power, status, and dominance is the socialexchange framework. Social exchange theo-rists assume that individuals will act to maxi-mize their interpersonal rewards and mini-mize their interpersonal costs (Blau, 1964;

Emerson, 1976; Homans, 1958; Thibaut &Kelley, 1959). A pivotal concept of this theoryis dependence—the extent to which one’s out-comes are contingent on exchange with an-other. Dependence is a function of both valueand alternatives inasmuch as people are moredependent on those whose exchange relation-ships they value highly, especially when alter-natives are few (Molm & Cook, 1995). Power,then, is achieved dyadically when one personvalues exchange with the other and has few al-ternatives (see, e.g., Emerson, 1962; Thibaut& Kelley, 1959). People often express thispower-dependence relationship nonverballyby making themselves appear more attractiveas exchange partners, by communicating theirinterest in building relationships, or by signal-ing that they are not interested in an exchange.

A second approach to the study of power innonverbal influence is Lawler’s (1986) bilat-eral deterrence theory. Lawler and Bacharach(1987) distinguished between dependencepower (the control that is achieved by beingless dependent on the other) and punitivepower (the influence gained by a person per-ceived as likely to inflict harm). Becausepower in relationships is never zero sum, thetotal or absolute amount of power in a rela-tionship can vary. Total power is the sum ofeach party’s absolute power, and relativepower is the power difference of each party’sabsolute power (Lawler, 1992). As Emerson(1962) and other theorists have noticed,power is rarely in the hands of one person;rather, it is shared as people become depend-ent on one another. This makes nonverbalcommunication so much more important be-cause as power relationships are negotiatedover time, much of this negotiation takes placewithout words. Thus, a handshake, a tone ofvoice, eye contact, and other nonverbal cuescan have a profound effect on the powerdynamic between two people.

A third theory that is especially relevant tothe role of power, dominance, and status in




nonverbal influence processes is expectationstates theory. This theory, which focuses oninfluence and task performance in groups,revolves around expectations that establish a“power and prestige order” (Berger, Conner,& Fisek, 1974; Ridgeway & Berger, 1986;Ridgeway & Walker, 1995). Group membersdevelop expectations about others’ likely con-tributions to the task based on status charac-teristics, and these performance expectationsconfer an “expectation advantage or disad-vantage,” depending on whether the individ-ual is expected to contribute favorably orunfavorably to successful task completion.

Status characteristics are any characteristicof actors around which evaluations of andbeliefs about them come to be organized. Ex-amples include age, sex, race, ethnicity, educa-tion, occupation, physical attractiveness, andintelligence (Berger, Rosenholtz, & Zelditch,1980). Expectation states theory differenti-ates between specific and diffuse status char-acteristics. Specific status characteristics aresocially valued skills, expertise, or social ac-complishments that imply a specific andbounded range of competencies (e.g., com-puter skills, mathematical skills). Diffuse sta-tus characteristics, such as gender and race,are culturally associated with some specificskills but also carry general expectations forcompetence that are diffuse and unbounded inrange (Ridgeway & Walker, 1995).

Many of these characteristics are signalednonverbally through one’s demeanor and ap-pearance, making this theory especially rele-vant to nonverbal influence. Those who pos-sess status-valued external characteristics “aremore likely (1) to have chances to perform, (2)to initiate problem-solving performances,[and] (3) [to] have their performances posi-tively evaluated, and [they] (4) are less likelyto be influenced when there are disagree-ments” (Berger, Ridgeway, Fisek, & Norman,1998, p. 381) than are those who lack suchcharacteristics or who possess negatively val-

ued characteristics. In this way, expectationstranslate into actual influence on group prob-lem solving.

Related to performance expectations arereward expectations, which are expectationsabout whether the status characteristics aremore or less likely to create benefits for indi-vidual perceivers or the group. There are threeclasses of reward structures: categorical, abil-ity, and outcome (Ridgeway & Berger, 1986).Categorical structures are related to diffusesocial status characteristics such as age, gen-der, and physical strength. These expectationsare like the physical attractiveness stereotypesdiscussed earlier in their ability to engenderattraction and confer credibility. A visiblephysical handicap or tattoo may be stigmatiz-ing; a tall muscular stature and graying hairmay, for a male, create a commanding impres-sion. Ability structures are associated with thespecific task to be performed. Speaking withan authoritative voice or using dramatic ges-tures may imply greater confidence and exper-tise (i.e., greater ability). Outcome structuresare associated with actual accomplishmentsduring the group task. Because the power andprestige order and reward expectations areinterrelated, those with high-expectation ad-vantages not only are more likely to take theinitiative (e.g., talking first, establishing seat-ing arrangements) and to be more partici-pative but also are more likely to be accordedmore deferential treatment by others. In thismanner, they will have more of their recom-mendations acknowledged and accepted.They may also reinforce their advantage byexhibiting verbal and nonverbal status andpotency cues, referred to as task performancecues, which further enable them to makemore—and more influential—contributionsto the group’s communication and, in the pro-cess, to legitimate their power and prestige.

A fourth, closely related theoretical area isthat concerning credibility. As noted previ-ously, a person’s demeanor and status charac-




teristics can confer credibility. Dominant be-haviors, such as direct eye contact, brief casualtouching, voices with great energy and vol-ume, short response latencies, and few dis-fluencies, are generally seen as more crediblebecause they connote confidence and poise(Burgoon et al., 1996). Keating and Heltman(1994), for instance, found that dominantchildren and adults were better at encodingdeception than were submissive children, es-pecially for males. They concluded that domi-nant individuals have a special capacity to per-petrate convincing deception that indicatesthat dominant individuals are inherently cred-ible even when being deceptive.

In a study of the nonverbal cues that affectcredibility and persuasion, Burgoon et al.(1990) argued that distal cues that can beobjectively measured, such as a speaker’svocal amplitude or frequency of illustratorgestures, generate proximal percepts such aswarmth, pleasantness, and dominance thatrepresent subjective judgments abstractedfrom the objective cues. It is these proximalpercepts that lead to perceptions of credibilityand persuasion. The authors found that kine-sic dominance cues (including distal cues suchas facial expressiveness and illustrator ges-tures) were especially important for generat-ing perceptions of competence, composure,character, and sociability. Kinesic dominance,along with vocal pleasantness, kinesic andproxemic immediacy, and kinesic relaxation,also affected the speaker’s persuasiveness.

Dominance is clearly linked to both cred-ibility and persuasiveness, but more researchis needed to explore more fully the rela-tionship among persuasion, credibility, anddominance. It is a long-standing assumptionin communication that higher credibility leadsto more compliance and attitude change(Burgoon et al., 1996). Research such as thatby Burgoon et al. (1990) and Keating andHeltman (1994) indicates that dominant com-municators elicit perceptions of credibility

through their confident demeanor and dyna-mism. For example, they make direct eyecontact, have rapid loud delivery, use facialexpressiveness, and use few adapters, all ofwhich serve to engender the perception ofcredibility and to increase compliance.

A final theoretical perspective is reflected inthe program of research on relational controlby Rogers and her colleagues (e.g., Escudero,Rogers, & Gutierrez, 1997; Millar & Rogers,1987; Rogers, Castleton, & Lloyd, 1996;Rogers & Farace, 1975; Rogers-Millar &Millar, 1979). This perspective emphasizesthe interactional nature of dominance andpower. Examining pairs of messages in a dy-ad’s conversation, they have found that in-teractants continually define the degree ofdominance or submissiveness in their relation-ship based on who has the right to direct,delimit, and define the action of the interper-sonal system (Millar & Rogers, 1987; Rogers& Farace, 1975). While the relational controlparadigm emphasizes verbalizations, Siegel,Friedlander, and Heatherington (1992) ex-panded it to include nonverbal cues. Theyfound that certain nonverbal behaviors, suchas a head nod and a raised eyebrow, are com-monly understood as discrete ways of eithergaining or relinquishing control of a socialrelationship.

Nonverbal Expressions ofPower, Dominance, and Status

Nonverbal behavior is a major avenue forthe communication of power, dominance, andstatus (Henley, 1995). The research on non-verbal communication demonstrates that sta-tus, power, and dominance are encoded anddecoded reliably by people in everyday in-teractions. This makes these highly reliableand potentially universal means of achievinginfluence.




Kinesics. Eye contact is a complex way tocommunicate dominance and status. Staring isused to connote dominance, while avertinggaze is likely to communicate submission.Dominant people break eye contact last. Atthe same time, high-status individuals are gen-erally expected to make less frequent eye con-tact, especially while listening, and subordi-nates are required to make eye contact withtheir superiors as a function of attentive listen-ing (Lips, 1991). This may seem like an appar-ent contradiction, but it becomes clearer in thecontext of “visual dominance”—defined asthe ratio of the proportion of time spent look-ing while speaking to the proportion of timespent looking while listening. Higher statusindividuals display more visual dominance(i.e., more looking while speaking and lesslooking while listening) and are seen as morepowerful by observers (Dovidio & Ellyson,1982, 1985; Ellyson, Dovidio, Corson, &Vinicur, 1980).

Relaxation is also a marker of dominanceand status. In mixed-status groups, individualswith higher rank typically exhibit posturalrelaxation (e.g., slumping in a chair, puttingtheir feet up on the desk), but individuals withlower rank tend to show more postural re-straint (Burgoon et al., 1996). This is probablydue to the fact that, like soldiers standing atattention, low-status individuals must remainattentive and vigilant while the higher statusindividual is freer to relax and has less need tobe watchful of others (Andersen & Bowman,1999).

Various gestures have been associated withpower, dominance, and status (although theamount of experimentally controlled researchon the subject is limited). Some evidence sug-gests that pointing at another person, usingexpressive and expansive gestures, steeplingthe hands, and using gestures while directingothers may be dominant gestures (Andersen &Bowman, 1999; Burgoon, 1994).

Vocalics. Dominance has been associatedwith vocal cues such as rapid speaking tempo,short response latencies, loudness, and a highproportion of speaking time (Burgoon, 1994).These vocal cues connote confidence and au-thority. Individuals expressing anger, a domi-nant type of expressive behavior, typicallyspeak louder than do nondominant individu-als (Kimble & Musgrove, 1988). Rogers andJones (1975) found that the more dominantmembers of a dyad held the floor about twiceas much of the time and interrupted their part-ners more than the less dominant partners.The person who speaks first in a group inter-action typically speaks the most and is per-ceived as the highest status (Lamb, 1981).

Silence can also be used to send messagesabout dominance and status. Subordinatesmust wait for their superiors to speak first andmust wait to be acknowledged by their superi-ors. Failing to recognize another person can bea potent reminder of status differences, evenwhen done unintentionally. Giving someonethe “silent treatment” and using lengthypauses while speaking are powerful remindersof status in relationships (Burgoon et al.,1996; Jaworski, 1993).

Proxemics and Haptics. Higher status indi-viduals are afforded more personal space, con-trol access to more desirable territory, andadopt body positions that occupy more spaceas compared to lower status individuals(Burgoon et al., 1996; Lips, 1991). In officeenvironments, there are lines of power andprestige based on where one’s office is located,how large it is, and how many windows it has(Hickson & Stacks, 1993). Some research hasdemonstrated that individuals with higherstatus (both experimentally controlled statusand diffuse status) actually take up more spacewith their bodies and possessions than dothose low in status (Leffler, Gillespie, &Conaty, 1982). This is consistent withBurgoon, Buller, Hale, and deTurck’s (1984)




finding that closer proximity conveys greaterdominance because it means that a personwith higher status is invading the space of asubordinate. Elevation also provides a sym-bolic hierarchical function and gives the domi-nant individual an advantage in both surveil-lance and protection (Burgoon, 1994). In astudy using drawings of male and female fig-ures, Schwartz, Tesser, and Powell (1982)found that dominance was associated with ele-vation, standing in front as opposed to behind,and standing as opposed to sitting.

In addition to using space, powerful indi-viduals have the ability to deviate from con-versational distancing norms. Studies haveshown that both close and far interaction dis-tances have been associated with high statusand dominance. This is because dominantindividuals are freer to deviate from norma-tive distances than are submissive individualsbecause they must maintain deferential dis-tances in conversations (Burgoon et al., 1996).

Nonreciprocal touch communicates power,status, and dominance (Henley, 1995). Statusequals touch each other in similar ways andplaces on the body, but among status unequals,high-status individuals typically touch theirsubordinates more often, and those touchesare not reciprocated by the subordinates(Burgoon et al., 1996). In addition to the fre-quency of touch, the type of touch as well aswho initiates the touch determines whether ornot it is perceived as powerful (Berger, 1994).Direct poking with a finger can be seen as avery dominant type of touch, especially whenthe response is a recoiling or cowing from thesubmissive partner. Hits, slaps, kicks, andother types of physical aggression are alsoconsidered haptic behavior and are clearlymeant to convey power (Burgoon et al., 1996;Straus, 1979).

Physical Appearance and Artifacts. Physicalappearance can have a potent effect on thecredibility of a speaker, which in turn has a

substantial impact on compliance gaining.Brownlow (1992) found that people with ma-ture faces were considered more expert andmore persuasive than people with “babyfaces,” but baby-faced individuals were seen asmore honest and trustworthy, perhaps becausetheir babyish facial features conveyed inno-cence. Rosenberg, Kahn, and Tran (1991)found that women who were dressed conser-vatively, appeared older, had almond or trian-gular-shaped eyes, and wore their hair shortwere seen as more competent political candi-dates than were other women.

People surround themselves with statussymbols or other artifacts to convey theirpower and prestige over others. Uniforms areoften potent cues for manipulating behav-ior because they signify the ability to rewardor punish due to their legitimate power andauthority (Burgoon et al., 1996). Bickman(1971, 1974) found that people are willing tocomply with the requests of a person wearingan unknown security uniform, even when therequests are outside that person’s legitimateauthority.

In addition to uniforms, other types ofclothing can also be a nonverbal message ofpower and status. For example, both male andfemale models’ intelligence was judged to behighest when the models were dressed for-mally (Behling & Williams, 1991). Many stud-ies have shown that compliance gaining andhelping behavior are affected by the attire ofmessage sources (Bickman, 1971; Giles &Chavasse, 1975; Lambert, 1972; Lefkowitz,Blake, & Mouton, 1955). Segrin’s (1993)meta-analysis of nonverbal communicationand compliance gaining showed that sourceswearing more formal and higher status cloth-ing were more successful at gaining compli-ance from lower status targets. In the class-room, numerous studies have demonstratedthat instructors who dress informally com-mand limited respect and are viewed by stu-dents as not especially knowledgeable and less




intelligent but also more friendly and fun thantheir formally dressed counterparts (Butler& Roesel, 1989; Davis, 1992; Workman,Johnson, & Hadeler, 1993). Credibility andpersuasion ability are associated with formalattire because high-status and privileged mem-bers of society tend to wear formal forms ofdress more often than do low-status members.Those wearing this high-status form of cloth-ing are thus judged to be more attractive, per-suasive, credible, and intelligent.

Chronemics. Time management can be apowerful status cue. In the fast-paced Westernworld where “time is money,” we generallyview people with higher status as having morevaluable time. Doctors communicate theirhigher status by having others wait in a “wait-ing room,” and interviewers communicatetheir hiring power by cutting the conversationshort if they do not think the interview is go-ing well or by prolonging the interview if itlooks promising. In general, the longer peoplewill wait for us, the more important we are,and the longer amount of time we spend withsomeone, the more important they are to us.Focusing on one task (monochronism) insteadof doing many things at once (polychronism)also indicates that the task at hand must be animportant one. The perception that time isvaluable even extends to speakers with a fastspeaking tempo who are usually associatedwith perceptions of dominance, status, and in-creased compliance (Burgoon et al., 1996).Perhaps it is their attempt to maximize the useof their own time or our perception that peo-ple in a hurry are important that leads us toassociate these people with credibility.

EXPECTANCY SIGNALINGAND EXPECTANCY VIOLATIONS

A wide array of theories of human behaviorand influence rely on the concept of expec-

tancies, whether labeled as such or embodiedin kindred concepts such as scripts, schemata,frames, norms, anticipatory responses, ad-vance organizers, or predictions. Here weconsider two that are especially relevant tocommunication expectancies and their capac-ity to influence others.

Definitions

Communicators enter interactions with ex-pectations about others—expectations abouttheir background, attitudes, beliefs, and likelycommunication behavior. Expectations, whichare cognitions about the anticipated behaviorof others, may range from the general (basedon sociocultural and contextual roles, rules,norms, and practices) to the particular (ad-justed for individuated knowledge or expe-rience with a specific other) (Burgoon &Walther, 1990). Expectancy-related theories,then, draw on that which is typical, common-place, or appropriate for a class of actors oracts but allow for expectations to take into ac-count unique information about the specificactor.


Two ways in which expectancies translateinto nonverbal influence are by (a) signal-ing expectations to a target, who then meetsthose expectancies, producing a self-fulfillingprophecy, and (b) violating those expectan-cies in positive or negative ways that elicit cor-responding positive or negative outcomes,including attitude and behavioral change orresistance. Theories related to expectancysignaling are variously referred to as theoriesof experimenter expectancy effects, self-fulfilling prophecies, or behavioral confir-mation (see, e.g., Darley & Fazio, 1980;Jones, 1986; Jussim, 1990; Neuberg, 1996;




Rosenthal, 1976, 1985; Snyder, 1984; Snyder& Swann, 1978). These theories examine howactors’ expectancies for a target person elicitthe expected behavior from the target, leadingto self-fulfilling prophecies and behavioralconfirmation (i.e., confirming through thebehavior what the actor had expected fromthem). For example, if teachers are led to be-lieve that a class of students has high achieve-ment potential, they are likely to behave inways that actually elicit higher performancefrom their students, creating a self-fulfillingprophecy. Conversely, if they expect that thestudents are underachievers, they will manageto elicit poorer performance from these stu-dents. From a communication standpoint,issues of interest are what verbal and nonver-bal behaviors by an actor exert this subtle, usu-ally inadvertent influence on targets and theconditions under which targets confirm, dis-confirm, or are responsive to these expectan-cies through their own behavior. Hundredsof studies have explored the issue of ex-pectancy signaling, and there is substantialevidence—a sampling of which is included inwhat follows—that nonverbal cues are pivotalto achieving these behavioral confirmationeffects.

Expectancy violations theory (Burgoon,1978, 1983, 1992, 1993; Burgoon & Bur-goon, 2001; Burgoon & Jones, 1976) positsthat, contrary to popular belief, it is some-times better to violate expectations than toconform to them. Like expectation statestheory, some expectations are a function ofcharacteristics of the individual actor (e.g.,physical appearance, age, sex), some are afunction of the interpersonal relationship be-tween actor and perceiver (e.g., acquainted ornot, equal or unequal, friendly or hostile), andsome are a function of the communicationcontext (e.g., formal or informal, task orsocial, public or private setting). These factorsall combine to create expectations for how an

actor will communicate nonverbally (or ver-bally). For example, an older, high-status malestranger may be expected to be somewhat dis-tant, to initiate formal touch, to dress for-mally, and to speak with a deeper pitchedexpressive and articulate voice.

When expectations are violated, such asintruding on another’s personal space oravoiding eye contact, the theory posits thatthis triggers an arousal or orientation response(Burgoon, Kelley, Newton, & Keeley-Dyreson,1989; Le Poire & Burgoon, 1996) in whichthe violation galvanizes attention to itself andits source, deepens information processing,and instigates an appraisal and evaluation pro-cess that results in the violation being valencedas positive or negative. The appraisal processis a matter of determining the possible mean-ings of the violation. Does close distance,for instance, imply liking or threat? Approvalseeking or intimidation? The evaluation pro-cess concerns the judgment of whether the actis desirable or undesirable. The combined in-terpretation and evaluation of the violation,taking into account who committed it, leadsto the valencing of the violation. Positive vio-lations are hypothesized to produce morefavorable results (including more persuasionand compliance), and negative violations arehypothesized to produce less favorable re-sults, than expectancy confirmations. Accord-ing to this theory, then, an actor may be betteradvised to violate norms and expectationsthan to abide by them so long as the actorknows that the act will be valenced positively.

A key factor determining valencing of a vio-lation is communicator reward valence. Re-ward valence is a summary term for all thecharacteristics of the actor that make the per-son, on balance, rewarding or unrewarding tointeract with. Nonverbal features, such as theperson’s attractiveness and demeanor, maycontribute to this reward quotient (just as theydo in expectation states theory). When a vio-




lation occurs, the heightened activation isthought to make the characteristics of theactor—good or bad—more salient. Thesecharacteristics can directly influence interac-tion outcomes, such as an attractive or high-status actor being more persuasive. They canalso affect the appraisal process by moderat-ing whether favorable or unfavorable inter-pretations and evaluations are selected. Asnoted previously, with attractive sources,there is a halo effect such that their actionsmay be interpreted more charitably andjudged as more desirable than those of unat-tractive sources. The same process applies toother reward characteristics. If, for example,an actor is held in high regard by virtue of hav-ing a charming communication style, he or shemay be able to invade another’s personalspace and have that act not only interpreted asan expression of liking but also evaluated aswelcome. Conversely, an actor who is unre-warding by virtue of being angry and abusivemay have the same act of personal space viola-tion judged as intimidation; even if it is inter-preted as a show of liking, it might not bewanted by the recipient. In the former case,the act should qualify as a positive violation,thereby facilitating persuasion and compli-ance; in the latter case, it should constitute anegative violation that produces, at best,involuntary temporary compliance and notlong-term behavioral or attitude change.

Although negative violations are generallythought not to be a prudent persuasive strat-egy, recent research has shown that theaversiveness of such violations may be duepartly to the uncertainty that is provoked(Afifi & Burgoon, 2000). Moreover, even neg-ative violations may confer some added bene-fit relative to confirmations, once the valenceof the violation itself is accounted for, if pairedwith positive qualities of the communicator(Burgoon & Le Poire, 1993). In this case, the

uncertainty may actually permit holding ontoinitially positive views of the actor.

Nonverbal Cues ThatSignal or Violate Expectations

In reality, every nonverbal cue has thepotential to activate expectancies or to violatethem. Here we focus on findings from re-search that has expressly examined nonverbalcues that tacitly signal expectancies and elicitbehavioral confirmation or that create viola-tions with possible implications for influenceprocesses.

Kinesics and Vocalics. A general theme inthe expectancy signaling literature, and onethat reappears in the expectancy violations lit-erature, is that gestural, facial, and vocalexpressivity have persuasive impact. For ex-ample, men who expect to interact with at-tractive women on the phone are more so-ciable, animated, and warm with them thanwhen they expect to interact with unattractivewomen, and they elicit similar communica-tion styles from the women (Snyder, Tanke, &Berscheid, 1977). The degree of positive ornegative affect that is expressed through voiceand body language also is persuasive. Peopleexpecting to interact with a hostile partner arethemselves more hostile and elicit more hostil-ity from their partner, thus confirming theirexpectations (Snyder & Swann, 1978). Andjudges may inadvertently cue juries to givemore harsh sentences to defendants with priorfelony convictions by instructing juries in amore negative and impatient voice (Blanck &Rosenthal, 1992).

Proxemics and Haptics. Nonverbal immedi-acy behaviors are ones that express psycholog-ical closeness. They include physical proxim-




ity, direct body orientation, forward lean,touch, and gaze. In the expectancy signalingmodel, these cues relate to the second factor ofaffect (i.e., creating a warmer and more sup-portive climate). Harris and Rosenthal (1985)conducted a meta-analysis of 135 experimentson communication of expectations. Theiranalysis showed that when communicatorsheld high expectations for another’s perfor-mance, they coupled increased immediacywith nonverbal cues of positive reinforce-ment. Specifically, they adopted closer dis-tances, used more gaze, and smiled and nod-ded more. In turn, the presence of thesebehaviors (especially eye contact, proximity,and smiling) increased the probability of tar-gets conforming to expectations by perform-ing well.

In the program of research on expectancyviolations, Burgoon and colleagues initiallyexplored the impact of proxemic violations(Burgoon, 1978, 1991; Burgoon & Aho,1982; Burgoon & Jones, 1976; Burgoon,Stacks, & Burch, 1982; Burgoon, Stacks, &Woodall, 1979). These experiments con-firmed that both close and far distances canqualify as positive violations if committed by ahigh-reward communicator and that theyenhance credibility and persuasiveness. Con-versely, the same behaviors qualify as negativeviolations when committed by a low-rewardcommunicator and have more adverse conse-quences than conforming to distancing norms(an intermediate conversational distance). Forexample, in one study, two confederates triedto persuade a third naive person. When thetwo confederates were both in the high-reward condition, the one who engaged in aproxemic violation was viewed as more credi-ble and gained more acceptance of his or heradvocated position as compared to the non-violating confederate. High-reward confeder-ates were also more persuasive when violatingnorms in comparison to themselves when not

violating. However, committing a proxemicviolation was a detrimental strategy for low-reward confederates. In those cases, the neteffect was that a violation conferred greatercredibility on the opponent—a contrast effect.Other research on proxemic violations (e.g.,Baron, 1978; Baron & Bell, 1976; Buller,1987; Konecni, Libuser, Morton, & Ebbesen,1975) also fits an expectancy violations expla-nation in that invasions of personal spaceyielded more helping behavior when a vio-lation could be justified or was seen as re-warding and less helping behavior when theviolation was inexplicable or qualified as non-rewarding.

Subsequent violations research examinedgaze (Burgoon, 1991; Burgoon, Coker, &Coker, 1986; Burgoon et al., 1985), touch(Burgoon, 1991; Burgoon & Walther, 1990,Burgoon, Walther, & Baesler, 1992), imme-diacy (Burgoon & Hale, 1988), and conver-sational involvement (Burgoon & Le Poire,1993; Burgoon, Le Poire, & Rosenthal, 1995;Burgoon, Newton, Walther, & Baesler, 1989;Le Poire & Burgoon, 1994; Le Poire &Yoshimura, 1999), which combines imme-diacy with other nonverbal cues to create anoverall level of engagement or disengagementin interaction. These investigations found thathigh degrees of gaze can be a positive violationbut has different interpretations depending onwhether it is displayed by a male or female;high conversational involvement is a positiveviolation, regardless of the reward level of theactor who commits it, but extreme immediacymay not be so; fleeting touch can be a positiveviolation if committed by a well-regarded per-son but is fraught with ambiguities that canmake it a risky choice in low-reward, oppo-site-sex interactions; and gaze aversion andnonimmediacy tend to be negative violations,regardless of who commits them.

One investigation contrasted an expectancysignaling explanation with an expectancy vio-




lations explanation for the effects of high andlow involvement during dyadic interaction(Burgoon, Le Poire, & Rosenthal, 1995). Itconfirmed that although targets reciprocatepositive expectancies, they may engage in stra-tegic compensatory responses when the ex-pectancies are negative—responding, for ex-ample, to negative expectancies with higherlevels of involvement and pleasantness thando those without such expectancies. Thus, tar-gets do not inevitably conform to what actorsexpect of them but instead may themselvesemploy communication to influence actorbehavior.

Other research on immediacy has demon-strated that students develop more positiveattitudes toward classes and learn more whenteachers use an immediate rather than a non-immediate teaching style (Andersen, 1986;Kleinfeld, 1974) and that job applicants aremore likely to be chosen for a position whenthey use a highly immediate interviewing style(Imada & Hakel, 1977). Thus, immediacy is apotent factor in exercising influence and maydo so by signaling positive expectations heldby the actor for the target and/or serving as apositive violation of expectations for actorbehavior.

Physical Appearance and Artifacts. Researchshowing that people who are well-groomedand dressed in more conventional or formalattire are more successful in getting others tosign petitions, make change, accept politicalliterature, or pick them up when hitchhik-ing (e.g., Bickman, 1971; Darley & Cooper,1972) implies that in the case of appearance,deviancy is a negative violation with negativeimpact on persuasion and compliance. Oneexception is when such deviant appearance iscoupled with an unexpectedly well-argued co-gent message or a message that is contrary toviews stereotypically associated with that ap-pearance (Cooper, Darley, & Henderson,

1974; McPeek & Edwards, 1975). For exam-ple, a “hippie-looking” speaker may be moreeffective than a conventional one in advocat-ing tax reform or speaking against marijuanause. In these cases, the appearance sets up neg-ative expectations that are positively violatedby the verbal message, hence making the mes-sage more persuasive.

Chronemics. Rosenthal and colleagues (e.g.,Babad, Bernieri, & Rosenthal, 1989; Rosenthal,1976, 1985, 1993), in theorizing about howteachers (and others) signal their expectationsto students (or other targets) and achieve self-fulfilling prophecies, have identified two ma-jor factors that communicate expectationsabout performance: effort and affect. The for-mer is essentially a chronemics variable be-cause it breaks down into more input, feed-back, and opportunities for output. Whenactors have high expectations for another,they tend to give that person more, and moredifficult, information; more time to respondto questions; and more feedback about thecorrectness of the person’s responses to ques-tions. Nonverbally, this translates into moreundivided and focused attention to the personand is manifested through more frequent andlonger interactions and longer response laten-cies. These cues, in turn, were found to elicitmore matching of the pre-interaction expec-tancies (Harris & Rosenthal, 1985). Such non-verbal cues, then, can shape another’s re-sponding toward the desired belief, attitude,or behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

It is clear that most of the behaviors that com-municate a source’s attraction toward a targetand/or create perceptions of power and domi-nance are the same behaviors that increasepersuasiveness and compliance-gaining effec-




tiveness. The reason why behavioral signs ofattractiveness and dominance might increasepersuasiveness may stem from reciprocity ofapparent attraction or from the connectionsamong attraction, dominance, and socialskills. When a source emits or uses behaviorsthat are indicative of attraction, similarity, ordominance, it is likely that targets will re-spond positively to their requests. Cues of at-traction and liking are easily expressed non-verbally while a persuasive appeal is beingmade verbally. Therefore, it is reasonable toassume that these accompanying nonverbalcues will facilitate persuasion, even thoughthat “liking” may have been consciously fabri-cated by a source who is well-versed in thereciprocity of attraction. People also respectthose in positions of power, assume that theyare more credible and knowledgeable thanthose with lower status, and defer to their in-fluence. It follows that nonverbal indicatorsof power and dominance, in addition to elicit-ing behavioral compliance in their own right,should enhance the persuasiveness of mes-sages they accompany.

The inherent credibility attributed to attrac-tive or dominant sources also may give themmore leeway to violate expectancies, thusenhancing their persuasiveness even further ifthe violation is positively valenced. Nonverbalbehaviors can provide subtle, but easily recog-nizable, cues that signal the norms and expec-tations of interaction partners. Socially skilledindividuals, who are typically also viewed asattractive and dominant, are more capable ofpicking up on those cues and determiningwhen to violate or conform to the expectan-cies. The ability to assess the situation andchoose the appropriate behavior, whether itenhances senders’ attractiveness, magnifiestheir similarities with the target, or demon-strates their power and/or status, is a key com-ponent of effective compliance gaining. Theskillful use of expectancy violations, then, is

one additional means by which nonverbalinfluence can be achieved.

DIRECTIONS FORFUTURE RESEARCH

The facile answer to the question of whatdirections future research should take is toinclude nonverbal facets in all influence re-search. But the injunction to incorporate non-verbal variables in communication researchgenerally is an old one to which little heed hasbeen paid in actual practice despite the lip ser-vice paid to its merits. There are doubtlessmany reasons for the paucity of such integra-tive research, but one predominant one is thepotential enormity of the task. Where doesone begin? We offer here several possible di-rections that are both manageable and likelyto yield payoffs in better understanding thenature of interpersonal influence.

First, it would be informative to return to aline of research that began during the 1960sand 1970s examining the impact of discrep-ancies between verbal and nonverbal chan-nels (see, e.g., Archer & Akert, 1977; Argyle,Alkema, & Gilmour, 1971; Gitter, Black, &Fishman, 1975; Krauss, Apple, Morency,Wenzel, & Winton, 1981; Mehrabian &Wiener, 1967; Zahn, 1973). For example,those experiments might create combinationsof friendly, neutral, and unfriendly vocal cuespaired with friendly, neutral, or unfriendlyverbal expressions to determine which hadmore influence on judged friendliness of themessage. A primary objective of what becamea rather voluminous body of research was toassess how people process mixed messagesand whether they place greater reliance onnonverbal or verbal cues when interpretingsuch messages (see DePaulo & Rosenthal,1979). Although this approach has since beendiscredited methodologically for its ability to




yield valid claims about the relative potency ofverbal versus nonverbal cues, the same re-search paradigm could be used to assesswhether certain kinds of nonverbal cues mod-erate the impact of verbal messages. For exam-ple, an unpublished study that the seniorauthor completed some years ago combineddegrees of verbal intensity with degrees ofvocal and facial intensity. If similar indepen-dent variables were used to test their impacton message persuasiveness, it would contrib-ute to our understanding both of the extent towhich nonverbal cues qualify interpretationsof verbal messages and the kinds of nonverbalcues that have this moderating impact.

A related vein of research could profitablyextend research on nonverbal expectancy vio-lations to consider in more detail their impacton persuasion and compliance. Most of thelanguage expectancy violations work hasfocused on influence-related outcomes, butmost of the nonverbal expectancy violationswork has focused on social judgments or in-teraction processes as outcomes. One of therare exceptions, the study by Burgoon et al.(1982), produced some provocative findingsabout the ability of expectancy violations byone person to confer advantages or disadvan-tages on another group member of equal re-ward value who conformed to expectations.Not only could this kind of investigation bereplicated using different nonverbal manipu-lations from the distance one used in thatexperiment, but also research could considerthe sequential impact of first conforming toand then subsequently violating expectationsor vice versa. The study of message sequencingin the persuasion literature has revealed somerather interesting reversals in message suscep-tibility over time. The possible benefits of us-ing nonverbal behaviors to establish expecta-tions that are subsequently violated by a verbalmessage is something about which Burgoonet al. (1996) speculated, based on limited evi-

dence from studies of conventional and un-conventional attire, but their speculationshave not been subjected to extensive empiricaltesting. If research in the sales and marketingarena attests to the value of setting modest(rather than unduly high) expectations so thata delivered product or service then positivelyviolates those expectations (Brandt, 1988;Cadotte, Woodruff, & Jenkins, 1987; Fisk &Young, 1985; Tse & Wilton, 1988; Woodruff,Cadotte, & Jenkins, 1983), then it followsthat nonverbal cues could be used to goodeffect to do the same thing. By leading receiv-ers to have limited expectations about a com-municator’s abilities, competency, status, orthe like, communicators might have greateropportunities to violate those expectations ina positive direction with a well-formulatedand argued message. By the same token, itwould be important to learn what kinds ofnonverbal cues might “set up” communicatorsto create inadvertent negative violations. Ifexpectations states theory is correct that influ-ence in task groups partly flows from theexpectations about a person’s expertise andstatus that are established at the outset of anyinteractions, then it behooves us to investigatemore deeply what nonverbal cues are respon-sible for establishing those expectations. Ingeneral, then, learning more about the juxta-position of the verbal with the nonverbal froman expectancy confirmation or disconfirma-tion standpoint would seem to be a fruitfulline of inquiry.

Just as cue combinations and their expect-edness may attenuate or accentuate verbalinfluence, so may individual difference vari-ables. Accordingly, the role of individual dif-ferences in nonverbal influence expressionswarrants further exploration. The abilities toencode and decode nonverbal behaviors arepart of individual difference variables such associal skills, nonverbal sensitivity, and com-munication competence (e.g., Riggio, 1986;




Rosenthal, Hall, Dimatteo, Rogers, & Archer,1979; Wiemann, 1977). Here again, this is anissue that has received very little attention inthe literature on nonverbal behavior and per-suasion. Where such studies do exist, the re-sults suggest that individual differences mayaccount for a great deal of variance in persua-sive outcomes. For example, people who arenot very strong decoders of nonverbal com-munication do not appear to be strongly influ-enced by nonverbal vocalic cues (Buller &Aune, 1988). On the other hand, appropriateuse of vocalic cues may enhance persuasiveoutcomes when aimed at audiences with goodnonverbal decoding cues. There are also anumber of personality traits such as Machia-vellianism, self-monitoring, and extraversionwith established associations to the use of cer-tain nonverbal behaviors and/or persuasive-ness. Such traits may prove to be importantmoderators of the association between non-verbal behavior and persuasive outcomes.

Yet another line of inquiry that would seema necessity if we are to understand true inter-action (i.e., interdependent actions betweentwo or more people) is to expand research tointeractions involving familiar others. Al-though a large body of literature has beenamassed on the relationship between nonver-bal behaviors and various social influence out-comes, that literature is focused almost exclu-sively on stranger interactions. It would beuseful to extend the domain of inquiry intoother relational contexts such as marriage,family, co-workers, and business transactions.A sufficient case already exists for the impor-tance of nonverbal behaviors in these rela-tional contexts (e.g., Gottman, Markman, &Notarius, 1977; Noller, 1984), and it wouldappear prudent to further explore how non-verbal patterns contribute to social influenceprocesses in these relational contexts.

A final area that deserves future explorationis computer-mediated communication (CMC).With government, businesses, schools, and

individuals relying increasingly on new tech-nology for communication such as e-mail,video-teleconferencing, the Internet, virtualcommunication, and communication withvirtual agents, the need for more research intononverbal cues is obvious. We need to learnmore about the role of nonverbal cues whenpersuasive attempts are computer mediatedor delivered via computer agents (Stoner,Burgoon, Bonito, Ramirez, & Dunbar, 1999).Although early researchers made the assump-tion that CMC filters out nonverbal cues (e.g.,Culnan & Markus, 1987), these assumptionsare being challenged, especially as we movebeyond text-based interactions and into vir-tual reality, human-computer interactions,and beyond (Burgoon, Bengtsson, Bonito,Ramirez, & Dunbar, 1999; Stoner et al.,1999). Some researchers have already madestrides in the examination of nonverbal mes-sages in CMC. Spears and Lea (1992) arguedin their social identity/deindividuation (SIDE)theory that when communicators lack visualinformation, they actually have increasedsocial identification, relating to others on thebasis of assumed similarities. Walther’s (1996)principle of hyperpersonal communicationdraws on this possibility, suggesting that medi-ated communication affords us more opportu-nity for selective impression management andtherefore a better chance to craft a more suc-cessful (persuasive) presentation by managingthe nonverbal and verbal cues that are pre-sented. Walther, Slovacek, and Tidwell (1999)argued that because some of the cognitiveresources used in face-to-face (FtF) interac-tion are unnecessary in CMC, we may reallo-cate those resources to message constructionas well as the monitoring and planning of ourown responses. We need to test whether theo-ries such as SIDE theory and the hyper-personal framework are correct that as cuesare restricted, people place greater reliance onthe few that are available so that nonverbalcues take on greater significance. These theo-




ries suggest that nonverbal communicationwill play a different role in mediated influencethan in FtF interactions, and this changingrole deserves more attention from futureinvestigators.

A related line of research, still in its infancy,could investigate the effects of mediation onthe perception of nonverbal cues to testwhether mediated interaction is capable ofachieving the same degree of mutuality andsynchronicity that is present in FtF interac-tion. If one of the enabling features of inter-personal influence is interactional synchrony,can this be achieved in mediated environ-ments or even amplified in environments suchas virtual reality? Will attractiveness and simi-larity effects be magnified in CMC if thesources of messages are not visible and theirattractiveness and similarity are assumed ra-ther than observed? Will unscrupulous indi-viduals be able to manipulate their potencyand dominance to achieve greater influenceif nonverbal cues are absent or highly con-strained in mediated exchanges? Clearly, me-diated interaction opens up a plethora of re-search opportunities and provides researcherswith more questions that must be answeredbefore nonverbal influence is truly under-stood in the 21st century.

REFERENCES

Afifi, W. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (2000). The impactof violations on uncertainty and consequencesfor attractiveness. Human Communication Re-search, 26, 203-233.

Aiello, J. R. (1987). Human spatial behavior. InD. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of en-vironmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 389-504).New York: John Wiley.

Aguilera, D. C. (1967). Relationship between phys-ical contact and verbal interaction betweennurses and patients. Journal of PsychiatricNursing, 5, 5-21.

Andersen, J. F. (1986). Instructor nonverbal com-munication: Listening to our silent messages. InM. Civikly (Ed.), Communicating in collegeclassrooms: New directions for teaching andlearning (pp. 41-49). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Andersen, P. A. (1985). Nonverbal immediacy ininterpersonal communication. In A. W. Siegman& S. Feldstein (Eds.), Multichannel integrationsof nonverbal behavior (pp. 1-36). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Andersen, P. A. (1999). Nonverbal communica-tion: Forms and functions. Mountain View, CA:Mayfield.

Andersen, P. A., & Bowman, L. L. (1999). Positionsof power: Nonverbal influence in organizationalcommunication. In L. K. Guerrero, J. A. DeVito,& M. L. Hecht (Eds.), The nonverbal communi-cation reader: Classic and contemporary read-ings (pp. 317-334). Prospect Heights, IL: Wave-land.

Archer, D., & Akert, R. M. (1977). Words andeverything else: Verbal and nonverbal cues insocial interpretation. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 35, 443-449.

Argyle, M., Alkema, F., & Gilmour, R. (1971). Thecommunication of friendly and hostile attitudesby verbal and nonverbal signals. European Jour-nal of Social Psychology, 1, 385-402.

Aries, E. J., Gold, C., & Weigel, R. H. (1983).Dispositional and situational influences on dom-inance behavior in small groups. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 44, 779-786.

Babad, E., Bernieri, F., & Rosenthal, R. (1989).Nonverbal communication and leakage in the be-havior of biased and unbiased teachers. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 89-94.

Baron, R. A. (1978). Invasions of personal spaceand helping: Mediating effects of invader’s ap-parent need. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-chology, 14, 304-312.

Baron, R. A., & Bell, P. A. (1976). Physical dis-tance and helping: Some unexpected benefits of“crowding in” on others. Journal of Applied So-cial Psychology, 6, 95-104.

Behling, D. U., & Williams, E. A. (1991). Influenceof dress on perceptions of intelligence and ex-pectations of scholastic achievement. Clothingand Textiles Research Journal, 9(4), 1-7.




Benson, P. L., Karabenic, S. A., & Lerner, R. M.(1976). Pretty please: The effects of physical at-tractiveness on race, sex, and receiving help.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12,409-415.

Berger, C. R. (1987). Communicating under uncer-tainty. In M. R. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.),Interpersonal processes: New directions in com-munication research (pp. 39-62). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Berger, C. R. (1994). Power, dominance, and socialinteraction. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communica-tion (2nd ed., pp. 450-507). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Berger, J., Conner, T. L., & Fisek, M. H. (1974).Expectation states theory: A theoretical researchprogram. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.

Berger, J., Ridgeway, C. L., Fisek, M. H., &Norman, R. Z. (1998). The legitimation anddelegitimation of power and prestige orders.American Sociological Review, 63, 379-405.

Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M., Jr.(1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Re-view of Sociology, 6, 479-508.

Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction andclose relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske,& G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of socialpsychology (4th ed., pp. 193-281). New York:Oxford University Press.

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. (1978). Inter-personal attraction (2nd ed.). Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Bickman, L. (1971). The effect of social status onthe honesty of others. Journal of Social Psychol-ogy, 85, 87-92.

Bickman, L. (1974). The social power of a uniform.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 47-61.

Blanck, P. D., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Nonverbalbehavior in the courtroom. In R. S. Feldman(Ed.), Applications of nonverbal behavioral theo-ries and research (pp. 89-115). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in sociallife. New York: John Wiley.

Brandt, R. (1988). How service marketers canidentify value-enhancing service elements. Jour-nal of Services Marketing, 2, 35-41.

Brockner, J., Pressman, B., Cabitt, J., & Moran, P.(1982). Nonverbal intimacy, sex, and compli-ance: A field study. Journal of Nonverbal Behav-ior, 6, 253-258.

Brownlow, S. (1992). Seeing is believing: Facial ap-pearance, credibility, and attitude change. Jour-nal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 101-115.

Brownlow, S., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (1990). Facialappearance, gender, and credibility in televisioncommercials. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14,51-60.

Bull, R., & Robinson, G. R. (1981). The influencesof eye-gaze, style of dress, and locality on theamounts of money donated to a charity. HumanRelations, 34, 895-905.

Buller, D. B. (1987). Communication apprehen-sion and reactions to proxemic violations. Jour-nal of Nonverbal Behavior, 11, 13-25.

Buller, D. B., & Aune, R. K. (1988). The effects ofvocalics and nonverbal sensitivity on compli-ance. Human Communication Research, 14,301-332.

Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1986). The effectsof vocalics and nonverbal sensitivity on compli-ance. Human Communication Research, 13,126-144.

Buller, D. B., LePoire, B. A., Aune, R. K., & Eloy,S. V. (1992). Social perceptions as mediators ofthe effect of speech rate similarity on compli-ance. Human Communication Research, 19,286-311.

Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model ofpersonal space violations: Explication and aninitial test. Human Communication Research, 4,129-142.

Burgoon, J. K. (1983). Nonverbal violations of ex-pectations. In J. M. Wiemann & R. P. Harrison(Eds.), Nonverbal interaction (pp. 77-112). Bev-erly Hills, CA: Sage.

Burgoon, J. K. (1991). Relational message inter-pretations of touch, conversational distance,and posture. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15,233-258.

Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Applying a comparativeapproach to nonverbal expectancy violationstheory. In J. Blumler, K. E. Rosengren, & J. M.McLeod (Eds.), Comparatively speaking: Com-munication and culture across space and time(pp. 53-69). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.




Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations,expectancy violations, and emotional communi-cation. Journal of Language and Social Psychol-ogy, 12, 13-21.

Burgoon, J. K. (1994). Nonverbal signals. In M. L.Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of in-terpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 229-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burgoon, J. K., & Aho, L. (1982). Three field ex-periments on the effects of conversational dis-tance. Communication Monographs, 49, 71-88.

Burgoon, J. K., Bengtsson, B., Bonito, J., Ramirez,A., Jr., & Dunbar, N. E. (1999, January). De-signing interfaces to maximize the quality of col-laborative work. Paper presented at the HawaiiInternational Conference on Computer and Sys-tems Sciences, Maui, HI.

Burgoon, J. K., Birk, T., & Pfau, M. (1990). Non-verbal behaviors, persuasion, and credibility.Human Communication Research, 17, 140-169.

Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Hale, J. L., &deTurck, M. A. (1984). Relational messages as-sociated with nonverbal behaviors. HumanCommunication Research, 10, 351-378.

Burgoon, J. K. Buller, D. B., & Woodall, W. G.(1996). Nonverbal communication: The unspo-ken dialogue. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Burgoon, J. K., & Burgoon, M. (2001). Expectancytheories. In W. P. Robinson and H. Giles (Eds.),Handbook of language and social psychology(2nd ed, pp. 79-101). Sussex, UK: Wiley.

Burgoon, J. K., Coker, D. A., & Coker, R. A.(1986). Communicative effects of gaze behav-ior: A test of two contrasting explanations. Hu-man Communication Research, 12, 495-524.

Burgoon, J. K., & Dunbar, N. E. (1998, February).Interpersonal dominance as a situationally, in-teractionally, and relationally contingent socialskill. Paper presented at the annual conferenceof the Western States Communication Associa-tion, Denver, CO.

Burgoon, J. K., & Dunbar, N. E. (2000). Aninteractionist perspective on dominance-submission: Interpersonal dominance as a dy-namic, situationally contingent social skill.Communication Monographs, 67, 96-121.

Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbalexpectancy violations: Model elaboration and

application to immediacy behaviors. Communi-cation Monographs, 55, 58-79.

Burgoon, J. K., Johnson, M. L., & Koch, P. T.(1998). The nature and measurement of inter-personal dominance. Communication Mono-graphs, 64, 308-335.

Burgoon, J. K., & Jones, S. B. (1976). Toward atheory of personal space expectations and theirviolations. Human Communication Research, 2,131-146.

Burgoon, J. K., Kelley, D. L., Newton, D. A., &Keeley-Dyreson, M. P. (1989). The nature ofarousal and nonverbal indices. Human Commu-nication Research, 16, 217-255.

Burgoon, J. K., & Le Poire, B. A. (1993). Effects ofcommunication expectancies, actual commu-nication, and expectancy disconfirmation onevaluations of communicators and their com-munication behavior. Human CommunicationResearch, 20, 75-107.

Burgoon, J. K., Le Poire, B. A., & Rosenthal, R.(1995). Effects of preinteraction expectanciesand target communication on perceiver reci-procity and compensation in dyadic interaction.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31,287-321.

Burgoon, J. K., Manusov, V., Mineo, P., & Hale,J. L. (1985). Effects of eye gaze on hiring, credi-bility, attraction and relational message interpre-tation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 9, 133-146.

Burgoon, J. K., Newton, D. A., Walther, J. B., &Baesler, E. J. (1989). Nonverbal expectancy vio-lations and conversational involvement. Journalof Nonverbal Involvement, 13, 97-119.

Burgoon, J. K., & Saine, T. J. (1978). The unspokendialogue. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Burgoon, J. K., Stacks, D. W., & Burch, S. A.(1982). The role of interpersonal rewards andviolations of distancing expectations in achiev-ing influence in small groups. Communication,11, 114-128.

Burgoon, J. K., Stacks, D. W., & Woodall, W. G.(1979). A communicative model of violationsof distancing expectations. Western Journal ofSpeech Communication, 43, 153-167.

Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A., & Dillman, L. (1995).Dyadic adaptation: Dyadic interactional pat-tern. New York: Cambridge University Press.




Burgoon, J. K., & Walther, J. B. (1990). Nonverbalexpectancies and the consequences of viola-tions. Human Communication Research, 17,232-265.

Burgoon, J. K., Walther, J. B., & Baesler, E. J.(1992). Interpretations, evaluations, and conse-quences of interpersonal touch. Human Com-munication Research, 19, 237-263.

Butler, S., & Roesel, K. (1989). Research note: Theinfluence of dress on students’ perceptions ofteacher characteristics. Clothing and Textiles Re-search Journal, 7(3), 57-59.

Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and atti-tude similarity. Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, 62, 713-715.

Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. NewYork: Academic Press.

Byrne, D., Ervin, C. R., & Lamberth, J. (1970).Continuity between the experimental study ofattraction and real-life computer dating. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 157-165.

Cadotte, E. R., Woodruff, R. B., & Jenkins, R. L.(1987). Expectations and norms in models ofconsumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Re-search, 24, 305-314.

Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physical attrac-tiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 37, 1387-1397.

Chaiken, S. (1986). Physical appearance of socialinfluence. In C. P. Herman, M. P. Zanna, & E. T.Higgins (Eds.), Physical appearance, stigma, andsocial behavior: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 3,pp. 143-177). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cooper, J., Darley, J. M., & Henderson, J. E.(1974). On the effectiveness of deviant- andconventional-appearing communicators: A fieldexperiment. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 55, 937-949.

Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Informa-tion technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam,K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbookof organizational communication: An interdis-ciplinary perspective (pp. 420-443). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Darley, J. M., & Cooper, J. (1972). The “Clean forGene” phenomenon: The effect of students’ ap-pearance on political campaigning. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 2, 24-33.

Darley, J. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1980). Expectancyconfirmation processes arising in the social in-teraction sequence, American Psychologist, 35,867-881.

Davis, M. A. (1992). Age and dress of professors: In-fluence on students’ first impressions of teachingeffectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univer-sity, Blacksburg.

DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1979). Ambiv-alence, discrepancy, and deception in non-verbal communication. In R. Rosenthal (Ed.),Skill in nonverbal communication: Individualdifferences (pp. 204-248). Cambridge, MA:Oelgeschlager, Gunn, & Hain.

Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972).What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.

Dovidio, J. F., & Ellyson, S. L. (1982). Decodingvisual dominance: Attributions of power basedon relative percentages of looking while speak-ing and looking while listening. Social Psychol-ogy Quarterly, 45, 106-113.

Dovidio, J. F., & Ellyson, S. L. (1985). Patterns ofvisual dominance behavior in humans. In S. L.Ellyson & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Power, domi-nance, and nonverbal communication (pp. 129-149). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Duck, S. (1994). Meaningful relationships: Talking,sense, and relating. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Duck, S. (1998). Human relationships (3rd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ellyson, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Corson, R. L., &Vinicur, D. L. (1980). Visual dominance behav-ior in female dyads: Situational and personalityfactors. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 328-336.

Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence rela-tions. American Sociological Review, 27, 31-41.

Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory.In A. Inkeles, J. Coleman, & N. Smelser (Eds.),Annual review of sociology (pp. 335-362). PaloAlto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Ernest, R. C., & Cooper, R. E. (1974). “Hey Mis-ter, do you have any change?”: Two real worldstudies of proxemic effects on compliance with amundane request. Personality and Social Psy-chology Bulletin, 1, 158-159.




Escudero, V., Rogers, L. E., & Gutierrez, E. (1997).Patterns of relational control and nonverbal af-fect in clinic and nonclinic couples. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 14, 5-29.

Exline, R. V. (1963). Explorations in the process ofperson perception: Visual interaction in relationto competition, sex, and need for affiliation.Journal of Personality, 31, 1-20.

Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are notwhat we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 304-341.

Fisher, J. D., Rytting, M., & Heslin, R. (1976).Hands touching hands: Affective and evaluativeeffects of an interpersonal touch. Sociometry,39, 416-421.

Fisk, R. P., & Young, C. E. (1985). Disconfirmationof equity expectations: Effects of consumer sat-isfaction with services. In E. C. Hirschman &M. Holbrook (Eds.), Advances in consumer re-search (Vol. 12, pp. 340-345). Provo, UT: Asso-ciation for Consumer Research.

Foa, E., & Foa, U. (1974). Societal structures of themind. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The basesof social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studiesin social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI:Institute for Social Research.

Gifford, R. (1982). Projected interpersonal dis-tance and orientation choices: Personality, sex,and social situation. Social Psychology Quar-terly, 45, 145-152.

Giles, H., & Chavasse, W. (1975). Communicationlength as a function of dress style and social sta-tus. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40, 961-962.

Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991).Accommodation theory: Communication, con-text, and consequence. In H. Giles, J. Coupland,& N. Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of accommoda-tion: Developments in applied sociolinguistics(pp. 1-68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Gitter, A. G., Black, H., & Fishman J. E. (1975).Effects of race, sex, nonverbal communication,and verbal communication on perceptions ofleadership. Sociology and Social Research, 60,46-57.

Glick, P., DeMorest, J. A., & Hotze, C. A. (1988).Keeping your distance: Group membership, per-

sonal space, and requests for small favors. Jour-nal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 315-330.

Goldman, M., Kiyohara, O., & Pfannensteil, D. A.(1984). Interpersonal touch, social labeling, andthe foot-in-the-door effect. Journal of Social Psy-chology, 125, 143-147.

Gottman, J., Markman, H., & Notarius, C. (1977).The topography of marital conflict: A sequentialanalysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Jour-nal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 461-477.

Hall, J. A. (1980). Voice tone and persuasion. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38,924-934.

Hammermesh, D. S., & Biddle, J. E. (1994). Beautyand the labor market. American Economic Re-view, 84, 1174-1195.

Harris, M. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Mediationof interpersonal expectancy effects: 31 meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 363-386.

Hayduk, L. A. (1983). Personal space: Where wenow stand. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 293-335.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonalrelations. New York: John Wiley.

Henley, N. M. (1995). Body politics revisited:What do we know today? In P. J. Kalbfleisch &M. J. Cody (Eds.), Gender, power, and communi-cation in human relationships (pp. 27-61). Hills-dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hensley, W. E. (1981). The effects of attire, lo-cation, and sex on aiding behavior: A similarityexplanation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6,3-11.

Heslin, R., & Alper, T. (1983). Touch: A bondinggesture. In J. M. Wiemann & R. P. Harrison(Eds.), Nonverbal interaction (pp. 47-75). Bev-erly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hickson, M. L., III, & Stacks, D. W. (1993). Non-verbal communication: Studies and applications(3rd ed.). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.

Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as ex-change. American Journal of Sociology, 62, 597-606.

Hornik, J. (1992). Tactile stimulation and con-sumer response. Journal of Consumer Research,19, 449-458.

Hovland, C., Janis, I. L., & Kelly, H. H. (1953).Communication and persuasion. New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.




Imada, A. S., & Hakel, M. D. (1977). Influence ofnonverbal communication and rater proximityon impressions and decisions in simulated em-ployment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 62, 295-300.

Jaworski, A. (1993). The power of silence: Socialand pragmatic perspectives. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Jones, E. E. (1986). Interpreting interpersonal be-havior: The effects of expectancies. Science,234, 41-46.

Jones, S. E. (1994). The right touch. Cresskill, NJ:Hampton.

Jussim, L. (1990). Social reality and social prob-lems: The role of expectancies. Journal of SocialIssues, 46, 9-34.

Keating, C. F., & Heltman, K. R. (1994). Domi-nance and deception in children and adults: Areleaders the best misleaders? Personality and So-cial Psychology Bulletin, 20, 312-321.

Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification,and internalization: Three processes of attitudechange. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51-60.

Kimble, C. E., & Musgrove, J. I. (1988). Dom-inance in arguing mixed-sex dyads: Visualdominance patterns, talking time, and speechloudness. Journal of Research in Personality, 22,1-16.

Kleinfeld, J. S. (1974). Effects of nonverbalwarmth on learning of Eskimo and White chil-dren. Journal of Social Psychology, 92, 3-90.

Kleinke, C. L. (1977). Compliance to requestsmade by gazing and touching experimenters infield settings. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 13, 218-223.

Kleinke, C. L., Bustos, A. A., Meeker, F. B., &Staneski, R. A. (1973). Effects of self-attributedand other-attributed gaze in interpersonal eval-uations between males and females. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 9, 154-163.

Kleinke, C. L., & Singer, D. A. (1979). Influence ofgaze on compliance with demanding and concil-iatory requests in a field setting. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 5, 386-390.

Konecni, V. J., Libuser, L. Morton, H., & Ebbesen,E. B. (1975). Effects of a violation of personalspace on escape and helping responses. Journalof Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 288-299.

Krauss, R. M., Apple, W., Morency, N., Wenzel, C.,& Winton, W. (1981). Verbal, vocal, and visiblefactors in judgements of another’s affect. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40,312-319.

Kurklen, R., & Kassinove, H. (1991). Effects ofprofanity, touch, and subjects’ religiosity on per-ceptions of a psychologist and behavioral com-pliance. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 899-901.

Lamb, T. A. (1981). Nonverbal and paraverbal con-trol in dyads and triads: Sex or power differ-ences? Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 49-53.

Lambert, S. (1972). Reactions to a stranger as afunction of style of dress. Perceptual and MotorSkills, 35, 711-712.

Lawler, E. J. (1986). Bilateral deterrence and con-flict spirals: A theoretical analysis. In E. J. Lawler(Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 3,pp. 107-130). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Lawler, E. J. (1992). Power processes in bargaining.Sociological Quarterly, 33(1), 17-34.

Lawler, E. J., & Bacharach, S. B. (1987). Compari-son of dependence and punitive forms of power.Social Forces, 66, 446-462.

Leffler, A., Gillespie, D. L., & Conaty, J. C. (1982).The effects of status differentiation on nonver-bal behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45,153-161.

Lefkowitz, M., Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S.(1955). Status factors in pedestrian violations oftraffic signals. Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, 51, 704-706.

Le Poire, B. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (1994). Two con-trasting explanations of involvement viola-tions: Expectancy violations theory and discrep-ancy arousal theory. Human CommunicationResearch, 20, 560-591.

Le Poire, B. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Usefulnessof differentiating arousal responses within com-munication theories: Orienting response of de-fensive arousal within theories of expectancyviolation. Communication Monographs, 63,208-230.

Le Poire, B. A., & Yoshimura, S. M. (1999). The ef-fects of expectancies and actual communicationon nonverbal adaptation and communicationoutcomes: A test of interaction adaptationtheory. Communication Monographs, 66, 1-30.




Lips, H. M. (1991). Women, men, and power.Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

McPeek, R. W., & Edwards, J. D. (1975). Expec-tancy disconfirmation and attitude change. Jour-nal of Social Psychology, 96, 193-208.

Mehrabian, A., & Wiener, M. (1967). Nonverbalconcomitants of perceived and intended persua-siveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 6, 37-58.

Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1987). Relationaldimensions of interpersonal dynamics. In M. E.Roloff & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal pro-cesses: New directions in communication re-search (pp. 117-139). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Miller, N., Maruyama, G., Beaber, R. J., & Valone,K. (1976). Speed of speech and persuasion. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34,615-624.

Molm, L. D., & Cook, K. S. (1995). Social ex-change and exchange networks. In K. S. Cook,G. A. Fine, & J. S. House (Eds.), Sociological per-spectives on social psychology (pp. 209-235).Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Neuberg, S. L. (1996). Expectancy influences insocial interaction. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A.Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action (pp. 529-554). New York: Guilford.

Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance pro-cess. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Noller, P. (1980). Gaze in married couples. Journalof Nonverbal Behavior, 5, 115-129.

Noller, P. (1984). Nonverbal communication andmarital interaction. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Norman, R. (1976). When what is said is impor-tant: A comparison of expert and attractivesources. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-ogy, 12, 294-300.

Pallak, S. R. (1983). Salience of a communicator’sphysical attractiveness and persuasion: A heuris-tic versus systematic processing interpretation.Social Cognition, 2, 158-170.

Pallak, S. R., Murroni, E., & Koch, J. (1983). Com-municator effectiveness and expertise, emo-tional versus rational appeals, and persuasion: Aheuristic versus systematic processing interpre-tation. Social Cognition, 2, 122-141.

Patterson, M. L. (1983). Nonverbal behavior: Afunctional perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Patterson, M. L., Powell, J. L., & Lenihan, M. G.(1986). Touch, compliance, and interpersonalaffect. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 10, 41-50.

Pope, B., & Siegman, A. W. (1966). Ambiguity andverbal fluency in the TAT. Journal of ConsultingPsychology, 30, 239-245.

Ridgeway, C. L., & Berger, J. (1986). Expectations,legitimation, and dominance behavior in taskgroups. American Sociological Review, 62, 218-235.

Ridgeway, C. L., Diekema, D., & Johnson, C.(1995). Legitimacy, compliance, and gender inpeer groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58,298-311.

Ridgeway, C. L., Johnson, C., & Diekema, D.(1994). External status, legitimacy, and compli-ance in male and female groups. Social Forces,72, 1051-1077.

Ridgeway, C. L., & Walker, H. A. (1995). Statusstructures. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S.House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on so-cial psychology (pp. 281-310). Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

Riggio, R. E. (1986). Assessment of basic socialskills. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 51, 649-660.

Riggio, R. E., Tucker, J., & Throckmorton, B.(1988). Social skills and deception ability. Per-sonality and Social psychology Bulletin, 13, 568-577.

Rogers, L. E., Castleton, A., & Lloyd, S. A. (1996).Relational control and physical aggression insatisfying marital relationships. In D. D. Cahn &S. A. Lloyd (Eds.), Family violence from a com-munication perspective (pp. 218-239). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rogers, L. E., & Farace, R. V. (1975). Analysis ofrelational communication in dyads: New mea-surement procedures. Human CommunicationResearch, 1, 222-239.

Rogers, W. T., & Jones, S. E. (1975). Effects ofdominance tendencies on floor holding and in-terruption behavior in dyadic interaction. Hu-man Communication Research, 1, 113-122.

Rogers-Millar, E. L., & Millar, F. E. (1979). Domi-neeringness and dominance: A transactionalview. Human Communication Research, 5, 238-246.




Rosenberg, S. W., Kahn, S., & Tran, T. (1991). Cre-ating a political image: Shaping appearance andmanipulating the vote. Political Behavior, 13,345-367.

Rosenthal, R. (1976). Experimenter expectancy ef-fects in behavioral research (enlarged ed.). NewYork: Irvington.

Rosenthal, R. (1985). Nonverbal cues in the media-tion of interpersonal expectancy effects. In A. W.Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Multichannel in-tegrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 105-128).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rosenthal, R. (1993). Interpersonal expectations:Some antecedents and some consequences. InP. D. Blanck (Ed.), Interpersonal expectations:Theory, research, and applications (pp. 3-24).New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rosenthal, R., Hall, J. A., Dimatteo, M. R., Rogers,P. L., & Archer, D. (1979). Sensitivity to nonver-bal communication: The PONS test. Baltimore,MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Rubin, Z. (1970). The measurement of romanticlove. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 16, 265-273.

Schwartz, B., Tesser, A., & Powell, E. (1982). Dom-inance cues in nonverbal behavior. Social Psy-chology Quarterly, 45, 114-120.

Segrin, C. (1993). The effects of nonverbal be-havior on outcomes of compliance gaining at-tempts. Communication Studies, 44, 169-187.

Siegel, S. M., Friedlander, M. L., & Heathering-ton, L. (1992). Nonverbal relational control infamily communication. Journal of NonverbalBehavior, 16, 117-139.

Siegman, A. W. (1987). The telltale voice: Nonver-bal messages of verbal communication. In A. W.Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Nonverbal behav-iors and communication (2nd ed., pp. 351-434).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Snyder, M. (1984). When belief creates reality. InL. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimentalsocial psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 247-305). NewYork: Academic Press.

Snyder, M., Grether, J., & Keller, K. (1974).Staring and compliance: A field experiment onhitchhiking. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-ogy, 4, 165-170.

Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1978). Behavioralconfirmation in social interaction: From social

perception to social reality. Journal of Experi-mental Social Psychology, 14, 148-162.

Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977).Social perception and interpersonal behavior:On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereo-types. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 35, 656-666.

Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence andthe influence of the “social” in computer-mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Con-texts of computer-mediated communication(pp. 30-65). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.

Stoner, G. M., Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A.,Ramirez, A., Jr., & Dunbar, N. (1999, May).Nonverbal cues in mediated communication.Paper presented to the annual meeting of theInternational Communication Association, SanFrancisco.

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily con-flict and violence: The Conflict Tactics Scale.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.

Taylor, D. A., & Altman, I. (1987). Communica-tion in interpersonal relationships: Social pene-tration processes. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller(Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directionsin communication research (pp. 257-277). New-bury Park, CA: Sage.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The socialpsychology of groups. New York: John Wiley.

Tse, D. K., & Wilton, P. C. (1988). Models of con-sumer satisfaction formation: An extension.Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 204-212.

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated commu-nication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyper-personal interaction. Communication Research,23, 3-43.

Walther, J. B., Slovacek, C. L., & Tidwell, L. C.(1999). Is a picture worth a thousand words?Photographic image in long-term and short-termcomputer-mediated communication. Paper pre-sented to the annual meeting of the InternationalCommunication Association, San Francisco.

Wiemann, J. M. (1977). A model of communica-tive competence. Human Communication Re-search, 3, 195-213.

Willis, F. N., & Hamm, H. K. (1980). The use ofinterpersonal touch in securing compliance.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 5, 49-55.




Winter, D. G. (1973). The power motive. NewYork: Macmillan.

Woodall, W. G., & Burgoon, J. K. (1983). Talkingfast and changing attitudes: A critique and clari-fication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 126-142.

Woodruff, R. B., Cadotte, E. R., & Jenkins, R. L.(1983). Modeling consumer satisfaction pro-cesses using experience-based norms. Journal ofMarketing Research, 20, 296-304.

Workman, J. E., Johnson, K. K., & Hadeler, B.(1993). The influence of clothing on students’

interpretative and extended inferences about ateaching assistant. College Student Journal,27(1), 119-128.

Zahn, G. L. (1973). Cognitive integration of verbaland vocal information in spoken sentences. Jour-nal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 320-334.

Zuckerman, M., Hodgins, H., & Miyake, K.(1990). The vocal attractiveness stereotype:Replication and elaboration. Journal of Nonver-bal Behavior, 14, 97-112.






Documents

MESSAGE FEATURES Nonverbal Influence 23 Nonverbal Influence