Sei sulla pagina 1di 29

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: 12-25 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- • Other cultures: P-
time emphasizes time cultures don’t
precise schedules, value punctuality as
promptness, time as highly, don’t
a commodity emphasize precise
– “time is money” schedules
– “New York minute” – “island time”
– “Down time” – Sioux Indians have no
– “Limited Time Offer!” spoken words for
– “late” or “tardy”
“Must Act Now”
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

Potrebbero piacerti anche