Systematic Use of Body Position in Social Interaction

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Nonverbal Communication
Systematic Use of Nonverbal Communication
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Social interaction is something that people do on a daily basis. From the time they rise in the morning and make eye contact with their spouses or family members, there is communication even before the first word is spoken. How it is accomplished is often not subject to analysis or introspection.

In social interaction, the marriage between verbal and nonverbal communication is often taken for granted until the nonverbal aspect takes on a significant factor in emphasizing meaning to the verbal communication. When it provides the participation framework for interaction, the establishment of the interaction’s orientation is important for the mutual understanding of a specific situation, such as in a game of hopscotch where the rules had been transgressed. (Goodwin)

How people communicate is based on one’s culture and environment, often beginning early in a person’s development. Infants are already capable of responding to nonverbal cues such as gaze direction and finger pointing from six months of age. The ability to connect in a meaningful way is the beginning of communication prior to learning of a language, which is why it is considered efficacious for caregivers to constantly provide input for children at all stages of their development.

The ability to register communication cues is important skills in language development as children start to interact with another person. They begin to distinguish facial expressions as well as imitate actions and gestures. (Pruden, Hirsh-Pasek and Golinkoff 15) More importantly, they begin to understand cues of body posture, head direction, eye gaze and voice direction as input in social interactions based on how adults act and communicate. (16) Children also pick up on the emotional nuances that a speaker may adopt to interpret the veracity of verbal communication, if the speaker’s facial expression and body posture matches it or not. (17)

Children typically develop skills for interpreting gestures and actions on objects by imitating other people’s actions and gaze direction during joint attentional engagement in social cognitive understanding. They develop declarative and requesting gestures that can be understood by others in the same cultural context, although children with developmental disabilities such as autism do so on a much less frequent basis. This is probably due to a deficit in joint attentional engagement with a significant social interactant such as an adult or parent, which some behavioural therapists have attempted to facilitate with the use of robotic intermediaries. (Carpenter, Pennington and Rogers 91)

It is believed that autistic children have difficulty in following gaze and head direction of other people, an ability that forms a major part of developing social interaction skills. (Robins, Dickerson, Stribling and Dautenhahn 162-163) Using robots, which are predictable and considered safe by autistic children to interact with, eases the way into more complex relationships with humans.

In a study of a patient with aphasia, Goodwin determined that when gestures and body language become significant factors in communication in the absence of adequate verbal ability, it is important that the participation framework involve several parties that share a common focus of attention and fund of experiences. (24)

In other words, people communicate with more than what they actually say, and much of what is termed body language is often a spontaneous reflection of how a person feels or what a person intends. But is there anything systematic about the way in which participants in social interaction position their bodies? By systematic, it is implied that it is the deliberate and calculated use of these nonverbal cues to put across a certain persona or characteristic of the speaker during an exercise in communication. This paper will attempt to answer this question by first considering the nature and aspects of nonverbal communication and how it impacts on verbal communication based on the available research.

Nonverbal Communication

Kinesics is better known as body language, which is the study of how the body communicates nonverbally. In terms of structure, kinesics distinguishes between signals, which are deliberate and previously defined sets of movement to convey specific meanings, i.e. sign language, and gestures, which are more open to interpretation and culturally based. (“Body Language I” 2).

The kinesic code embodies the various aspects of nonverbal communication, and involved different parts of the body. The posture that is relaxed but evenly distributed whether sitting or standing is positive and communicates confidence, professionalism and organization. Dynamism, however, can be achieved using various gestures and movements to emphasize a point or to better describe an object, person or situation. (Ram and Ram 5).

“[C]ommunication is not made up of people or even of individual expressions but of patterned relations among the behaviors of multiple people” (A. E. Scheflen qtd in Beach 608) Communication is a complex process that has become of much interest to scientists who are attempting to translate its nuances into computer systems.

The importance of the gaze in human interaction that seeks to persuade make it an important aspect of research for the development of multimodal interfaces. (Turk, Bailenson, Beall, Blascovich and Guadagno 51)

The way an individuals makes use of eye movement and expressions, otherwise referred to as the gaze, reveals key information about the social interaction between two or more people. It has been in the interest of those developing embodied conversational agents (ECA) that seek to program an understanding of the nonverbal aspect of human interaction because it has become apparent that the gaze and other nonverbal communication constitute a large part of such interaction. (Morency, Christoudias and Darrell 2).

The systematic attachment of meaning to social interaction is thought to be more realistic if based on directly observable everyday conversational settings rather than on contrived scenarios in which the parties that interact follow a conceptual or philosophical approach. (Beach 1990, 604) It is difficult to anticipate how people will interact in any given situation because of the many factors involved.

It is also most important to take into account that nonverbal cues are closely tied with culture, and that some gestures may have different and opposite meanings for different cultures. Crossing the fingers, for example, is a wish of good luck in the US, but it means “ten” in China and “close relationship” in Hong Kong. (Imai 5) Pointing is considered rude in some cultures, and personal space limits are much closer than typical Western standards. However, some attempts at creating realistic frameworks of participation based on observed behaviour have been made.

“Conversation Analysis…(CA) is a field of empirical research which has provided a framework for the detailed scrutiny of the action mutually accomplished by participants in sequences of interaction.” (Robins, Dickerson, Stribling and Dautenhahn 164) Such activities must be relevant to all participants for the communication to be meaningful and to be understood by all. This includes all verbal and nonverbal actions, including talk, body movement, posture, gaze and gestures. (165)

There has been some study that some actions are difficult to make if they directly contradict a spoken imperative. This phenomenon is called the action–sentence compatibility effect (ACE). Glenberg and Kaschak posits that “meaning is embodied…. derives from the biomechanical nature of bodies and perceptual systems”. (558)

In other words, it is suggested that people are conditioned to respond in a certain way when given a directive and that consciously going in the opposite direction become surprisingly difficult. In the same way, conditioning triggers an automatic response in people when confronted with certain nonverbal cues, such as when somebody suddenly looks up, the tendency of people immediately around to look up as well. Or when somebody places a finger across the nose, people start sniffing around for some strange smell. These are automatic responses, although it is entirely possible to suppress the impulse.

When social interaction follows a prescribed path as taught by experience to be an accepted interchange then it passes from one’s consciousness without significance. But if a non-standard response results then the interaction begins to assume significance. For example, when one greets a friend or acquaintance with a “Hi!” as they pass each in the hall at work, the accepted response is “Hi” as well, or perhaps a smile or a nod. If it is ignored or returned with a grimace or sarcastic comment, the initiating participant will almost surely pause and start wondering if there was cause for such a non-standard response.

One becomes aware that there was interaction, albeit it only became noticeable because it did not follow the prescribed pattern. (Beach 609) The functionality of gestures has become a subject of empirical study insofar as it relates to how it is used during social interaction. (Streeck 276) How far gestures may be considered an integral part of communication is of obvious importance for sociologists and anthropologists alike, as they provide important information regarding the cultural basis for the formation of gestures in particular, and nonverbal communication in general.

In the above example of a prescribed interaction, it brings to the fore the fact that most people are not aware that for each and every social interaction, subtle changes and the element of individual idiosyncrasy can make even the most mundane and simple encounter problematic. In many ways, such situations are based on previous history between the interactants, and with some reflection it would be possible to solve the puzzle when one goes back to the particular context of that relationship. The situation also highlights how many nonverbal cues affect participants in an interaction.

Gesture

The term “gesture” comes from the Medieval Latin word gestura, which means to bear or to carry, and was originally used to mean deportment, body posture or carriage. In modern times, gesture is an action that is meant to indicate an intention or evoke a response. (Haviland 199)

Turk attempts to classify gestures using the “gesture continuum” proposed by Kendon which defines gestures as gesticulation which is the movement of hands and arms during speech; language-like gestures which are movements that takes the place of a spoken word or description; pantomimes which describes objects or actions which may also be accompanied by speech; emblems or symbolic gestures such as the L shaped fingers placed on the forehead to denote “loser” or the V for “victory” sign; and the more formal and defined sign language, which is a gesture-based linguistic system.

The first category, gesticulation, which makes up about 90% of human gestures may be iconic, metaphoric, beat or emphasis and deictic or pointing gestures. It is not necessary for people to be face-to-face to use such gestures, which are spontaneous and often habitual. Gestures may also be classified based on their function. These are semiotic, which seeks to convey information; ergotic, which creates artefacts or move objects; and epistemic, which involves the touching of objects to explore it. (Billinghurst 14.2)

The use of gestures may be intentional or inadvertent but it is inevitable that it will be assigned meaning by other participants in a social interaction. Gestures are generally thought of symbolic and expressive accompaniment to verbalizations, although it has been increasingly thought that gestures with the hands, in particular, serve a more explicit purpose. (Streeck 19-20) In some instances, gestures, on their own, comprise meaningful interaction between individuals without one word being spoken.

Because hands are considered the primary method for tactile experiences, it is believed that concepts and even philosophical thought are based on how well hands receive input and express them as well. Many people believe that gestures are indicative of a person’s intention or hidden meaning, and such interpretations will largely be determined by cultural tradition and individual peculiarities of thinking. In most cases, if the participants in the interaction share a common cultural background, they will more or less come to the same conclusions. However, if this is not the case then the interpretations can be more varied, and may even lead to a miscommunication.

The attachment of significance may also occur on the subconscious level, and may affect how participants react to a speaker without knowing why or how. (Haviland 197) Once the interpretation becomes conscious and analytical, gestures are given much less importance than they warrant, superseded by the importance of the spoken or other visual communication such as graphs or pictures in a presentation. (198)

Gaze

Lance and Marsella emphasizes the importance of the gaze in human interaction as key to plumbing the inner intention of the participant. It reveals the emotional and cognitive state in conjunction with other nonverbal cues such as body posture, head position and hand and arm gestures. It is purported that such nonverbal communication are dependent and interrelated and provides valuable information on the credibility of what the participant is actually saying.

The naturalness of the gaze is often removed when it is without expression, making the interaction disturbing, even unnerving to other participants. (72-73) Computer programmers involved in animation are often frustrated when the realism of their work is nullified by the lack of natural gaze mobility and expression, and has spurred the construction of a workable framework establishing eye motion patterns and values.

There are three types of eye motion patterns, namely eye contact which is one participant looking at another participant; deictic motion which may refer to a person who is not a participant in the interaction or an object; and nondeictic motion or gaze-averting gestures which implies thought of the participant and indicates cognitive load such as retrieving information from memory. (Morency, Christoudias and Darrell 2) How one uses gaze, gaze direction and gaze shifting will establish the tone of the interaction as well as establish the relationship with all participants.

Body Posture

Posture or body position is but one aspect of body language, although it is the most easily detectable. It can suggest a wide variety of attitudes or emotions, such as aggression, approachability, defensiveness and submission. Even where one stands or sits in a room can convey the desire for company or attention, such as sitting in a corner or standing near the wall signals a desire for solitude or non-participation while striding to the middle of a dance floor conveys the desire to party. When in a group, body position will also define the boundaries of the group in terms of who will be included or excluded. (“Body Language I” 2)

The position of the body will indicate the relationship of the participants in a social interaction. Personal space is a defined area approximately 18 inches all around a person, although this may vary depending on the culture, age and gender. They even have a name for personal space: proxemics. In American culture, less than 18 inches away denotes intimate relationships, while 18 inches to 4 feet is typical interpersonal distance including casual acquaintances and business associates.

During a formal business meeting or social-consultative interaction, four to 12 feet is used. (Ram, and Ram 3) People tend to “keep their distance” with people who are strangers and people they dislike. Courting couples make a move into a closer zone while lovers are often in the closest possible zone. In general, women with women stand closer in conversation than men with men, and older people prefer more space than younger people. (“Body Language I” 2).

Some information can also be established through position at a table at a class or meeting. Leadership can be established at a meeting by sitting at the head of a table or at a position where there are fewer seats where eye contact can be established with more people. Sitting in a corner in a classroom may indicate the desire not to be noticed while sitting front and centre indicates just the opposite. Sitting next to the leader may indicate agreement or affinity with the leader while directly opposite may indicate a challenging position. (“Body Language I” 2)

Systematic Use of Nonverbal Communication

If one is to accept that nonverbal cues are often interdependent and interrelated, and that participants in a social interaction often subconsciously rely on such cues while consciously discounting its effects on their own participation, it would appear that the systematic use of nonverbal communication as a whole would be to the benefit of people in certain situations such as in business meetings, sales presentations, job interviews and in facilitation. In other words, this includes any interaction where the aim is to persuade, to motivate, to sell or to evoke a specific response.

Facilitation is much more complex than casual communication because it aims not only to impart information, describe a task or exchange between individuals but to develop an environment in which enables participants to do what is necessary. (Rixon, McWaters and Rixon 22) Typically, facilitators are trained in this through strategies such as active listening, questioning, summarizing or paraphrasing.

However, facilitators agree that aside from verbal skills, nonverbal cues are important aspects of facilitation of effective communication. Many strive to indicate openness by holding hands palms up, encourage participation by exuding an energetic and enthusiastic pose as well as stimulate excitement by using appropriate arm and hand gestures and facial expressions. Moreover, nonverbal communications enables facilitators to establish relationships with their participants much more effectively. (27)

Judith Filek, a consultant with Impact Communications Inc. states that business communicators focus not only on what they say but how they say it. Because their task is persuade and to motivate, they understand that how they put their message across to their audience is crucial to how it will be received on an emotional as well as a cognitive level. To accomplish this, they employ a variety of delivery skills that take into account body posture, gestures, facial expression, movement, eye contact, pauses and facial expression.

When attempting to persuade or to make a sale, there are several body positions that subconsciously establish a relationship and rapport between salesperson and potential client. One often-used technique is mirroring, duplicating the body language of the potential client that makes the salesperson seem more empathetic and friendly. (“Body Language I” 2) The presenter may also smile to evoke a smile back, which establishes rapport and sympathy.

An interesting observation involves police shows on television, specifically in interrogation rooms where the aim is to provoke a response. Often, the interrogator adopts an aggressive attitude by standing over an interviewee to inspire feelings of intimidation. Sometimes, the attitude is friendly and non-intimidating to establish sympathy with a potential witness, so the interrogator sits next to the interviewee. The content of the interrogation may be similar but the responses are often different. These tactics are calculated to get the desired results, and have nothing to do with the persona of the interrogator.

Aside from systematically cultivating nonverbal communication skills, in some situations it is necessary to also systematically detect and interpret the nonverbal cues of other people, especially during business negotiations. Signs to look for include lip biting, throat clearing, eye blinking and breathing rate. Maintain eye contact as much as possible so that changes in gaze can also be detected. It is important, however, that such observation is not obvious to the one being observed. (Ram and Ram 1-2)

Conclusion

In everyday situations, nonverbal cues are spontaneous accompaniments of verbal communication. People waggle their fingers, shift from side to side, lean forward, compress their lips and shift their gaze as they engage in conversation based on an individual’s personality and emotional state, but these are not systematic or deliberate. If a person is upset or happy, it will show but it is not a practiced manoeuvre. Much of the nonverbal habits are based on culture, learned behaviour that has been ingrained through experience and previous social interaction, and there are some situations in which they could be misinterpreted when the audience is not within the same cultural context.

However, there are situations in which the importance of nonverbal communications assumes equal importance with the verbal part of the interaction, and these include interactions of which aims to persuade, to motivate, to sell or to evoke a specific response. In such cases, people do adopt systematic and judicious body language that will help them accomplish their goals, often undergoing workshops and seminars to hone appropriate skills.

Works Cited

“Body Language I: Beyond Words.” Learning Seed. 2008. Web.

Beach, Wayne A. “On (not) observing behavior internationally.” Western Journal of Speech Communication 54 (1990): 603-612. Web.

Billinghurst, Mark. “Gesture based interaction.” Haptic Input 3 (2002). Web.

Carpenter, Malinda, Pennington, Bruce F. & Rogers, Sally J. “Interrelations among social-cognitive skills in young children with autism.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 32.2 (2002): 91-106. Web.

Filek, Judith. “Improve your core game by improving seven delivery skills.” Impact Communications Inc. 2004. Web.

Glenberg, Arthur M. & Kashak, Michael P. “Grounding language in action.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9.3 (2002): 558-565. Web.

Goodwin, Charles. “Action and embodiment within situated human interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (2000): 1389-1522. Web.

Goodwin, Charles. “Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning in aphasia.” Conversation and Brain Damage. Ed. Charles Goodwin. Los Angeles, CA: Oxford University Press, 2002. 1-51. Web.

Haviland, John B. “Gesture.” Companion to Linguistic Anthropology 14 (2003): 197-221. Web.

Imai, Shinobu. “Nonverbal communication: gestures around the world.” Old Dominion University. 2002. Web.

Lance, Brent & Marsella, Stacy C. “Emotionally expressive head and body movement during gaze shifts.” IVA (2007): 72–85. Web.

Morency, Louis-Philippe, Christoudias, C. Mario and Darrell, Trevor. “Recognizing gaze aversion gestures in embodied conversational discourse.” ICMI (2006). Web.

Pruden, Shannon M., etal. “The social dimension in language development: a rich history and a new frontier.” To appear in The Development of Social Engagement Eds. P. Marshall & N. Fox. Web.

Ram, Gabriel & Ram, Nili. “When negotiating, look for nonverbal cues.” Angelfire.com. Web.

Rixon, Andrew, McWater, Viv & Rixon, Sascha. “Exploring the language of facilitation.” Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal 7 (2006): 21-30. Web.

Robins, Ben, etal. “Robot-mediated joint attention in children with autism: A case study in robot-human interaction.” Interaction Studies 5.2 (2004): 161–198. Web.

Streeck, Jürgen. “A body and its gestures.” Gesture 2.1 (2002): 19-44. Web.

Streeck, Jürgen. “Gesture as communication I: Its coordination with gaze and speech.” Communication Monographs 60 (1993): 275-299. Web.

Turk, Matthew, etal. “Multimodal transformed social interaction.” ICMI (2004): 46-52. Web.

Turk, Matthew. “Gesture recognition.” Microsoft Research. Web.

Vilhjalmsson, Hannes & Marsella, Stacy C. “Social performance framework.” USC Information Sciences Institute. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!