The term non-verbal communication can refer to facial expression, eye contact, pupil dilation, posture, gesture and interpersonal distance. It can also refer to communication through touch or smell, through various kinds of artefacts such as masks and clothes, or through formalized communication systems such as semaphore. Sometimes it has been used to refer to the vocal features of speech, such as intonation, stress, speech rate, accent and loudness. Because the term non-verbal is a definition only by exclusion, the number of features which the term can embrace are virtually limitless.
However, not all non-verbal behaviour should be regarded as communication. For behaviour to be communicative, it needs to be shown that information has been both transmitted and received (referred to as ‘systematic encoding’ and ‘appropriate decoding’: Wiener et al. 1972). Even so, the concept of systematic encoding does not require that a behaviour should be intentionally communicative. Communication may take place without any conscious intention to communicate, or indeed, even against the express intentions of the encoder. For example, members of an audience may well show signs of boredom without any conscious intention to do so; indeed, a listener may even try to suppress such tell-tale cues by trying hard to appear attentive, but still be incapable of suppressing the occasional yawn. To the speaker, the listener may still communicate boredom, despite the best intentions not to do so (Bull 1987). Nor is awareness necessary to the concepts of systematic encoding and appropriate decoding, in the sense that neither encoder nor decoder needs to be able to identify the specific non-verbal cues through which a particular message is transmitted. For example, people may be left with the feeling that someone was upset or angry without being able to specify exactly what cues were responsible for creating that impression. In fact, it can be argued that a great deal of non-verbal communication takes this form, and that one task of the researcher is to try and identify more precisely the cues that are responsible for creating such impressions.
Non-verbal cues can be said to communicate information about emotion, speech, individual differences and interpersonal relationships. Particular importance is commonly ascribed to non-verbal cues in the communication of emotion, stemming from the observations of Charles Darwin (1872), who argued that the facial expressions of emotion constitute part of an innate, adaptive, physiological response. Current thinking has been heavily influenced by Ekman’s ‘neurocultural’ model (Ekman 1972; Ekman and Friesen 1986), according to which there are at least seven fundamental emotions with innate expressions which can be modified through the learning of what he calls display rules (norms governing the expression of emotions in different social contexts). Indeed, research has shown that there are discernible differences between posed and spontaneous expressions, in that posed expressions are more asymmetrical (Skinner and Mullen 1991)—evidence supporting the assumption of the neurocultural model that facial expressions are both innate and learned.
Non-verbal behaviour has been shown to be related to speech in terms of syntax (Lindenfeld 1971), vocal stress (Bull and Connelly; Pittenger et al. 1960) and meaning (e.g. Bull 1987; Scheflen 1964). If non-verbal behaviour is so closely related to speech, what functions does it serve? According to one view, gesture is essentially secondary to speech, used as a means of elaborating the spoken message, or as a substitute when speech is difficult or impossible (e.g. Ekman and Friesen 1969). An alternative view stems from Kendon (1985), who points out that gesture as a silent, visual mode of expression has very different properties from those of speech; consequently, it is suitable for a different range of communication tasks. According to this view, gesture should be seen not as subordinate to speech, but as an additional resource, as part of a multichannel system of communication, which allows the skilled speaker further options through which to convey meaning.
Non-verbal cues also convey significant information about individual differences and interpersonal relationships. For example, it has repeatedly been shown (e.g. Hall 1984) that there are notable sex differences in non-verbal communication, such that women are clearer encoders than men (i.e. they transmit more information through non-verbal cues) and also better decoders. Furthermore, men and women differ in the non-verbal behaviour which they use. Women both smile more and gaze more at other people; they prefer closer interpersonal distances and are approached more closely than men; they also use smaller and less open body movements and positions (Hall 1984). In addition, it has been shown that non-verbal behaviour varies according to the nature of the relationship, and that decoders can utilize such information to discern the relationship between people in terms of sex, age and acquaintanceship (e.g. Abramovitch 1977; Benjamin and Creider 1975).
Thus, non-verbal communication is an important source of social information; as such, there is no doubt that its systematic study does have considerable practical significance. If communication can legitimately be regarded as a skill (e.g. Argyle and Kendon 1967), then with appropriate training or instruction it is possible for people to improve their performance as with any other skill. This learning might take the form of a systematic course in social skills training, or it might be beneficial simply to read a book on non-verbal communication. Social skills training has been widely used both as a therapy for psychiatric patients experiencing social difficulties, and as a form of professional training with, for example, teachers, doctors, nurses and police officers; its effectiveness in a number of different social contexts is attested by a substantive research literature (e.g. Kelly 1982). Social skills training typically includes a significant component on non-verbal communication; as such, it reflects our increased awareness and theoretical understanding of the role of non-verbal communication in social interaction.
Peter Bull
University of York, UK
References
Abramovitch, R. (1977) ‘Children’s recognition of situational aspects of facial expression’, Child Development 48.
Argyle, M. and Kendon, A. (1967) ‘The experimental analysis of social performance’, in L.Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 3, New York.
Benjamin, G.R. and Creider, C.A. (1975) ‘Social distinctions in non-verbal behaviour’, Semiotica 14.
Bull, P.E. (1987) Posture and Gesture, Oxford.
Bull, P.E. and Connelly, G. (1985) ‘Body movement and emphasis in speech’, Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour 9.
Darwin, C. (1872) The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, London.
Ekman, P. (1972) ‘Universal and cultural differences in facial expression of emotion’, in J.R.Cole (ed.) Nebraska, Symposium on Motivation 1971, Lincoln, NB.
Ekman, P. and Friesen, W.V. (1969) ‘The repertoire of non-verbal behaviour: categories, origins, usage and coding’, Semiotica 1.
——(1986) ‘A new pan-cultural facial expression of emotion’, Motivation and Emotion 10.
Hall, J.A. (1984) Nonverbal Sex Differences: Communication Accuracy and Expressive Style, Baltimore, MD.
Kelly, J.A. (1982) Social Skills Training: A Practical Guide for Interventions, New York.
Kendon, A. (1985) ‘Some uses of gesture’, in O.Tannen and M.Saville-Troike (eds) Perspectives on Silence, Norwood, NJ.
Lindenfeld, J. (1971) ‘Verbal and non-verbal elements in discourse’, Semiotica 3.
Pittenger, R.E., Hockett, C.F. and Danehy, J.J. (1960) The First Five Minutes: A Sample of Microscopic Interview Analysis, Ithaca, NY.
Scheflen, A.E. (1964) ‘The significance of posture in communication systems’, Psychiatry 27.
Skinner, M. and Mullen, B. (1991) ‘Facial asymmetry in emotional expression: a meta-analysis of research’, British Journal of Social Psychology 30.
Wiener, M., Devoe, S., Robinson, S. and Geller, J. (1972) ‘Non-verbal behaviour and non-verbal communication’, Psychological Review 79.
