To what degree does social psychological research support the claim that non-verbal behaviour is a

To what degree does social psychological research support the claim that non-verbal behaviour is a ‘body language’?

The study of non-verbal behaviour has always been a topic of great discussion, research and general debate. Due to this, non-verbal behaviour has stemmed a great deal literature, from which the significance of body language in interpersonal relationships has been employed. This has brought to light a great array of techniques or actions that can be seen to exemplify non-verbal behaviour, such as facial expressions, gestures and pose. These actions can be seen as silent communicators, having great influence over our social environment, in addition to conveying much greater detail about our mood, preference and true feelings than verbal communication alone. The ability to apply the rules or codes of non-verbal behaviour to a vast array of social events has led this particular area of social psychology to become a highly researched topic of human behaviour. Therefore, within this research, there is both support and criticism for the claim that that non-verbal behaviour is a body language.

The first key issue in the study of non-verbal behaviour is what actual behaviour can be categorised as a communicatory device. It is necessary to identify this definition, as a debate exists as to whether all non-verbal behaviour is communicative or only certain non-verbal behaviour’s carry encoded messages from the sender to the receiver. It is within this debate that the distinction between non-verbal behaviour and non-verbal communication is emphasised. Non-verbal behaviour can be seen to be compromised of a great range of non vocal responses, without necessarily conveying any information, while non-verbal communication, still compromising of a great many non vocal responses but also transmitting information about the sender to the receiver. Three differing views have been put forward on this debate; each with different theories as to what non-verbal behaviour’s can be seen to be communicative. Ekman and Friesen (1969) argue that ‘only those non-verbal behaviours that are intended to be communicative should be regarded as non-verbal communication’. Therefore, Ekman and Friesen see the sender of non-verbal communication as the integral role, with the sender being fully aware that they are conveying information within their non-verbal behaviour, and therefore intend for this behaviour to be communicative. The idea of the sender and receiver of non-verbal communication is a fundamental attribute of non-verbal behaviour. According to Argyle (1994), all social signals are encoded and decoded by a sender and receiver. The sender encodes the information within a non-verbal behaviour, and this signal then is decoded by the receiver. When the signal is correctly decoded, the non-verbal behaviour can be said to be non-verbal communication. Yet, nonverbal cues may provide clarity or contradiction for a message being sent, and not all signals are correctly decoded, resulting in an unintentional or false communication taking place.

However, others argue that all behaviour, in general, carries information and thus all behaviour should be regarded as non-verbal communication (Watzlawick et al 1968). Again, this view requires the correct decoding of non-verbal behaviour for it to be communication; therefore the receiver must be able to decode the message correctly in order to understand what is being inferred. One further view, put forward by Wiener et al (1972), states that communication requires a shared signal or acknowledgment between the sender and receiver. Thus, it has to be shown that information has been transmitted through non-verbal behaviour for it to be ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

There is however, no conclusive definition to what non-verbal behaviour’s can be categorised as being communicative, therefore these three differing viewpoints provide the basis for the debate on this definition, and it is from these that other psychologists have developed their own views and theories concerning this field of behaviour.

Within social psychological research, there has been a great amount of experimentation and observation into actual forms of non-verbal behaviour, and in order to understand the claim that non-verbal behaviour is a body language it is necessary to look at these actions and responses.

Perhaps one of the most important communication tools in non-verbal behaviour is the facial area. This has been one of the most researched topics amongst non-verbal communication, and has been applied to a great many varied situations. One of the main functions of facial expressions is to communicate emotional states, and thus, the expressions have a variety of different uses in a variety of different situations. Some of the major emotions depicted by facial expression are that of happiness, fear, surprise, sadness and other fundamental emotions. Some psychologists argue that these general emotions are innate, and several studies have provided evidence to support this view. Eibl – Eibesfeldt (1973) conducted a study of children born deaf and blind. He argued that during certain social contexts, the children produced the same facial expressions as did other children without such handicaps, concluding that the ability to produce basic emotional reflexes was an innate response. With supporting research for facial expressions being an innate reflex, the claim that non-verbal behaviour is a body language could be credible. If facial expressions were truly innate, then it would stand to reason that an innate ability to decode them would also be present. This would provide evidence for a ‘body language’ being present, as there would be a universal understanding of facial expressions, thus representing universally understood ‘language’. However, there is no real evidence for this. In general, many argue that there is no conclusive evidence to show that

‘the association of particular facial expressions with particular emotions is innate. Smiling can be called a universal gesture in the sense that it is an expression which human beings are universally capable of producing, but this does not mean that it is innately associated with the emotion of happiness, nor that it has a universal meaning.’

(Bull, P. 1987 p8)

Therefore, it is necessary to look at other non-verbal behaviours in order to establish whether non-verbal behaviour could be described as a body language. One other major area of non-verbal behaviour is that of gaze. This is a particularly important non-verbal cue, as it not only enables others to see the direction or focus of the gazers attention, but it can act as a channel in which the gazer can receive another’s non-verbal signals. Therefore, gaze is important for two reasons, not only on the behalf of the receiver, but also for the sender of the non-verbal cues. Within this field of gaze, many also look at the effects of eye contact, as well as many other areas concerned within this topic. This area ranges from pupil dilation, to blink rate to the degree of opening or shutting eyes. Exline and Winters (1965) conducted a study whereby subjects were required to converse with two confederates and then state their preference for either confederate. During the conversation, the subjects were being recorded and measured for frequency and length of gaze at each confederate. The results showed that the participant looked much more frequently at the confederate they preferred. Yet, Bull (1983) argues that the eyes and pupils lack the same variety of movement as the face, and therefore are less easily discernable. This means that pupil dilation and frequency of gaze give no real distinguishable emotions, but instead are more likely to supply information on the intensity of emotion, rather than a separate emotion in itself. If this is the case, then eye contact and gaze may not be specific of a body language, this would be because no actual display of emotions could be derived from these non-verbal cues in entirety, but just an suggestion of intensity.

However, there are also other non-verbal behaviours that have been the subject of a great deal of research. One further major area of this research concerns posture and gesture. This field of posture and gesture has been one of the most popular areas within the study of ‘body language’ and a great deal of work has been produced relating to psychoanalyst’s observations on the sexual significance of certain postures and gestures (Argyle 1994). The notion of gestures can be seen as being closely related to speech to form a more complete view or sentiment of communication. Morris (1977) has conducted a great deal of research into this area and defines a gesture as,

‘Any action that sends a visual signal to an onlooker. To become a gesture, an act has to be seen by someone else and has to communicate some piece of information to them’.

(Morris 1977, p 24)

From this, Morris developed a number of theories and documented many different forms of gestures. These forms of gestures include incidental gestures, such as signals that the sender is not aware they are portraying. These vary from body positioning, such as those when a person is alert or bored to unknowing mood signal transmission. Although the sender is not aware that they are transmitting these signals, others are able to pick up on them. Although this does not represent communication in the sense that both parties knowingly transmit and receive information, information is still past onto another, with that person being able to decode and understand those signal, therefore communication has taken place.

Other gestures include mimic gestures, whereby gestures transmit signals via imitation. These can be generally understood universally as they attempt to accurately mimic real objects or actions, and therefore, as other gestures, communication can take place via non-verbal behaviour. One further, particularly important gesture to the area of non-verbal communication is that of coded gestures. For example, American Sign Language (ASL) has been shown to be ‘as complex and systematic a language as any spoken one’ (Messing and Campbell 1999 p2). This could be described as truly non-verbal communication and also, a true body language, in that, users are able to communicate to a great degree via non-verbal means.

Bodily posture can also be seen to convey a great deal of information about that person displaying that particular stance. The varying ways in which stance can be put to use can provide a ‘vital source of information about a persons emotions and attitudes’ (Deutsch 1952). However, Argyle (1994) argues that postures do not show emotions clearly, in exception to Bull (1987) who states that boredom and interest can be clearly defined. In contrast to all these views, Hardyk (1953) conducted a study whereby participants were asked to interpret the emotions of a number of stick figures depicting different postures. From this, he concluded that a number of postures do infact have specific meanings or emotional attachments. Once again, this could be described as a body language. These postures that are readily understood and interpreted in the same way by a multitude of different people, enable the sender to communicate an emotion to the receiver. By displaying a particular posture, the sender is deliberately conveying non-verbal cues to the receiver, who, as the study shows are able to decode these and understand the message. This means that communication of emotion is taken place by postural stance, therefore it could be said to be a body language.

As well as these major areas of non-verbal behaviour, there are also other areas that play key roles in social signals. These areas include spatial behaviour, with special reference to distance and orientation, and bodily contact, with concern to sexual attraction and aggression (Argyle 1994).

In accordance with spatial behaviour, Argyle and Dean (1965) argue that people move closer to those that we like, and thus, this decreased distance can be read by others as a cue for liking. This non-verbal behaviour could therefore be seen as non-verbal communication, as, by moving closer, the sender conveys information to the other person, which they can therefore decode and understand. The same principle applies for bodily contact, in that, a greater frequency of contact occurs in those we are said to prefer than those we do not. Touch can also have a positive effect, Fisher et al (1975) showed that if librarians touched borrowers when handing over books, the borrowers were said to have preferred not only the librarians but also the library. Therefore ‘touch leads to liking and often social influence’ (Argyle 1994), and thus, bodily contact can be used to display and influence emotions.

This area of non-verbal behaviour has been one that has commanded a great deal of research into many concerning aspects. The various types of non-verbal cues or signals that have been put forward are by no means complete, and an extensive reservoir of non-verbal cues may be used in order to display a particular emotion. Due to this, the claim that non-verbal behaviour is a body language is not entirely unfounded. Research has shown that non-verbal behaviour can lead to communication of emotion, and so therefore enables a language or dialogue to take place without any verbal stimuli. A great degree of social research does support this claim, and non-verbal behaviour and non-verbal communication have been inextricably linked. From the most basic of facial expression, the smile, to unknown signals sent out by the sender yet received and decoded by others, non-verbal behaviour can be described as a body language as it enables communication of emotion to take place in a variety of non-verbal ways.

Word Count: 2076

Bibliography

Argyle, M. (1994) The Psychology of Interpersonal Behaviour 5th Edition. Penguin Books Ltd:

Middlesex

Argyle, M. and Dean, J. (1965) Eye contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry. 28,

Buck, R. (1984) The Communication of Emotion. The Guilford Press: New York
Bull, P. E. (1987) Posture and Gesture. Pergamon Press: Oxford
Deutsch, F. (1952) Analytic Posturology. Psychoanalytic Quarterly. 16,
Eibl – Eibesfeldt (1973) The Expressive behaviour of the deaf and blind born. In M. von Cranach

& I. Vine (eds.), Social Communication and Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

Ekman, P. Friesen, W.V. (1969) ‘The repertoire of non-verbal behaviour – Categories, origins,

usage, and coding’. Semitoca vol. 1,

Exline, R. V. and Winters, L. C. (1965) ‘Affective relations and mutual glances in dyads’, in

Tomkins, S. and Izard, C. (eds) Affect, Cognition and Personality. Springer: New York

Fisher, J. Rytting, M. and Heslin, R. (1975) Hands touching hands: affective and evaluative effects

of an interpersonal touch. Sociometry. 39,

Hardyk, C. (1953) -
Gross, R. (2001) Psychology – The Science of Mind and Behaviour. Greengate Publishing: Kent
Malim, T. Birch, A. (1998) Introductory Psychology. Palgrave: Hampshire

Messing, L. Campbell, R. (1999) Gesture, Speech and Sign. Oxford University Press: Oxford
Morris, D. (1977) Manwatching – A field guide to human behaviour. Elsevier Publishing Projects: London
Watzlawick, P. Beavin, J. Jackson, D. (1968) Pragmatics of Human Communication. Faber and

Faber.

Page Student no. 02973168