Nonverbal Persuasion

Overview of nonverbal communication Nonverbal communication is powerful –Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall (1989) 60% of the socio-emotional meaning of a message is carried via nonverbal cues Nonverbal influence can be subtle –Fisher, Rytting, & Heslin (1976): Library patrons who received an “accidental” touch were more likely to return books on time

Overview continued You cannot “read a person like a book.” –No one-to-one correspondence between a particular nonverbal cue and its specific meaning –“individual difference perspective”: nonverbal behavior is highly idiosyncratic Not all of nonverbal communication is obvious or “intuitive” –Burgoon & Guererro (1994) relationship between posture and liking –eye contact and deception detection

Nonverbal persuasion in action Body Image: –Media depictions of the ideal female body type contribute to body dissatisfaction and eating disorders in women. –the average American model is 5'11" tall and weighs 117 pounds –the average American woman is 5'4" tall and weighs 140 pounds.

More nonverbal influence in action Nothing says “peace” and “ecology” like getting naked anti-war activists: naked dissidents spell “no war.” logging protesters: female environmentalists bare their breasts to stop loggers from cutting down old growth forests

Nonverbal persuasion in action When Bush claimed “mission accomplished” aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, the photo-op backfired as the war went on and on Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” during the Superbowl prompted the FCC to clamp down on risqué shows

The Direct Effects model of Immediacy Andersen (1999): warm, involving, immediate behaviors enhance the persuasive effects of a message –It is easier to comply with those we like –easier to trust warm, friendly people Single channel immediacy (eye contact) increases compliance, as does multi- channel immediacy (eye contact and smiling)

Expectancy Violations Theory Buller & Burgoon (1986) People have expectations about what constitutes appropriate behavior in social situations –example: elevator etiquette Violations of these expectations are perceived positively or negatively, depending upon: –the status, reward power of the communicator –the range of interpretations that can be assigned to the violation –the perception/evaluation of the interpreted act

Types of nonverbal cues Proxemics (distance) Vocalics (paralanguage) Haptics (touch) Chronemics (time) Kinesics (behavior) Artifacts (dress, belongings)

Proxemics Edward Hall’s space zones Effective persuasion requires honoring space zones (e.g. not violating expectations negatively) –Public distance: feet –Social or formal distance: 4-12 feet Most U.S. business relationships begin in the Social Zone –Personal or informal distance: 3 1/2/-4 feet Managers and co-workers who enter the Personal Zone too quickly risk conflict and distrust. –Intimate distance: 18 inches or less

Segrin’s (1993) meta-analysis of proxemics studies “close” distance was typically operationalized as 1-2 ft., “far” was usually 3-5 ft. of eight studies examined, “the effect for closer proximity was consistent. Close space produces greater compliance than distant space” (p. 173)

Advice on vocal delivery A faster speech rate enhances perceptions of credibility more than a slower speech rate Increasing intonation, volume, and pitch variation increases perceptions of credibility –Monotone speakers bore their audiences Limiting or controlling nonfluencies –Excessive “ums, uhs” decrease credibility Use an assertive style of speaking –conveys confidence and conviction Minimize casual speech, “valley talk,” colloquialisms Moderation should be exercised with all vocal cues (avoid extremes in any one category)

Haptics (touch) Self touch (adaptors) tend to decrease credibility The “Midas Touch” and compliance gaining –Gueguen (2003) females boarding a bus “discovered” they didn’t have a ticket. They asked the driver to let them ride for free Drivers who were touched were more likely to comply with the request than drivers who weren’t touched –Gueguen & Fischer-Lokou (2002): A person asked a stranger to watch his or her large, unruly dog for 10 minutes while he/she went into a bank 55% of subjects who were touched consented 35% of subject who weren’t touched consented –Crusco & Wetzel (1984), Hornick (1992) food servers who used touch received larger tips

Segrin’s (1993) meta-analysis of touch studies The most common experimental paradigm involves light touch on the upper arm or shoulder while making a request Of 13 studies examined, “it can be concluded touch always produces as much, and in many cases more compliance than no touch, all other things being held equal” (p. 174)

More on touch and compliance gaining Why is touch so persuasive? –Conveys immediacy, warmth –Increases liking –Serves as a distraction Caution: too much touch can backfire –May be perceived as a negative violation of expectations, e.g., insincere, coercive, or a form of sexual harassment

Chronemics Time spent waiting confers power, status –example: M.D.s and patients –example: Professors and students Tardiness can negatively impact credibility –Burgoon et al (1989): late arrivers were considered more dynamic, but less competent, less sociable than those who were punctual There are huge cultural differences in time- consciousness

Cultural differences in perceptions of time Western culture: M-time emphasizes precise schedules, promptness, time as a commodity –“time is money” –“New York minute” –“Down time” –“Limited Time Offer!” –“Must Act Now” Other cultures: P-time cultures don’t value punctuality as highly, don’t emphasize precise schedules –“island time” –Sioux Indians have no spoken words for “late” or “tardy”

Time as a sales strategy Urgency as a sales tactic –must act now, limited time offer, first come first serve –Time windows; shop early and save, super savings from 7am-10am –1 hour photo, Lenscrafters, Jiffy Lube, drive through banks, etc. Non-urgency as a sales strategy –90 days same as cash –No No No sales –mega-bookstores that encouraging browsing, lingering

Kinesics (movement, gesture, posture, facial expression, eye contact) Beebe (1974) eye contact and perceptions of honesty Eye contact and compliance gaining –Robinson, Seiter, & Acharya (1992) successful panhandlers establish eye contact –Kleinke (1989) compared legitimate and illegitimate requests when using eye contact –LaFrance &Hecht (1995) greater leniency for cheaters who smiled

Segrin’s (1993) meta-analysis of gaze studies Gueguen & Jacob (2003): Direct gaze produced greater compliance with a request to complete an oral survey than an evasive glance Gaze has been studied in the context of hitchhiking, borrowing change, handing out pamphlets, obtaining change, donating money for a charity “gaze produced greater compliance than gzae aversion in every one of the 12 studies” (p. 173)

Kinesics: facial expression Birdwhistle (1970): the face is capable of conveying 250,000 expressions

Kinesics: smiling Smiling increases sociability, likeability, attraction LaFrance & Hecht (1995) Smiling students who were charged with academic dishonesty received greater leniency Heslin & Patterson (1982): smiling by food servers increased tips Excessive smiling can hinder credibility

Kinesics: body language DePaulo (1982): “mirroring” body language facilitates compliance McGinley, LeFevre, & McGinley (1975): an “open” body posture is perceived as more persuasive than a “closed” posture

Kinesics: gestures, appearance, height and weight Gestures can send subtle or not so subtle cues Physical appearance –Mixed messages in women’s magazines –Brownlow & Zebrowitz (1990): baby faced versus mature face persuaders and credibility –Height and weight: Knapp & Hall (1992) survey of height and starting salaries Height and perceived credibility Argyle (1988) endomorphs more likely to be discriminated against

Artifacts Material objects as an extension of the self Uniforms and compliance gaining –Lawrence & Watson (1991): requests for contributions were greater when requesters wore uniforms –Bickman (1971): change left in a phone booth was returned to well dressed people 77% of the time, poorly dressed people only 38% of the time –Clothing signifies authority Example: Milgram (1974)

Clothing and status factors Gueguen (2003) Shoppers were less likely to report a well- dressed shoplifter than a casually dressed or poorly dressed shoplifter. –Neatly dressed: suit & tie (90% did not report) –Neutral: Clean jeans, tee- shirt and jacket, moccasins (63% did not report) –Slovenly: Dirty jeans, torn jacket, sneakers (60% did not report)

More on clothing and status factors Gueguen & Pichot (2001): pedestrians at a cross-walk were more likely to “jaywalk” by following a well-dressed person across an intersection displaying a red light –Control condition: 15.6% violations of do not walk signal –Well-dressed: 54.5% violations –Casually dressed: 17.9% violations –Poorly dressed: 9.3% violations

Segrin’s (1993) meta-analysis of apparel studies Operationalizations of clothing or attire were quite diverse (hippie, professional, bum, formal, uniform, etc.) In general “the more formal or high status the clothing, the greater the compliance rate obtained” (p. 177)

Attractiveness and social influence Stewart (1980) studied the relationship between attractiveness and criminal sentencing –handsome defendants were twice as likely to avoid a jail sentence Benson, Kerabenic, & Lerner (1976): both sexes were likely to comply with a request for aid or assistance if the other was attractive