NEGOTIATION
INSTRUCTOR:Prof. Azize ERGENELİ
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION
HAZIRLAYANLAR
Onur ALTINTAŞ
Özge EROĞLU
Nihal HASDEMİR
MART 2007
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CLOTHES......
COLOR......
DESIGN......
LIGHTING......
MOVABLE OBJECTS AND SEATING......
1.Leadership:......
2.Dominance:......
3.Task:......
a)Conversion
b)Cooperation
c)Coaction
d)Competition
4.Sex and Acquaintance:......
5.Motivation......
6.Introversion-Extraversion......
SPACE......
SILENCES......
A) Silences Occur in Interpersonal Communication:......
B) Silences Are Not Random......
C) Silence May Be Appropriate or Inappropriate:......
THE EFFECTS OF VOCAL CUES......
Vocal Cues and Personality......
Vocal Cues and Emotion......
MATERIAL USAGE IN NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION......
2) Using Eyeglasses......
TOUCH......
Who Touches Whom, Where, and How Much?......
Types of Touch......
1.The Handshake
2.The Body-Guide
3.The Pat
4.The Arm-Link
5.The Shoulder Embrace
6.The Full Embrace
7.The Hand-in-Hand
8.The Waist Embrace
9.The Kiss
10.The Hand-to-Head
11.The Head-to-Head
12.The Caress
13.The Body Support
14.The Mock-Attack
The Meanings of Interpersonal Touch......
1.Touch as Positive Affect......
2.Touch as Negative Affect......
3.Touch as Play......
4.Touch as Influence......
5.Touch as Interaction Management......
6.Touch as Interpersonal Responsiveness......
7.Touch as Accidental......
8.Touch as Task Related......
9.Touch as Healing......
10.Touch as Symbolism......
Self-Touching......
1.Shielding Actions
2.Cleaning Actions
3.Specialized Signals
4.Self-Intimacies
TIME......
1.Time as Location......
2.Time as Duration......
3.Time as Intervals......
4.Time as Patterns of Intervals......
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WOMEN & MEN IN NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION
Kinesics - body movement (gestures, facial expression, posture)
Oculesics - eye contact, gaze......
Haptics - touch and the use of it......
Proxemics - space and the use of it......
Theory’s Limitations......
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION
Collectivist and Individualist Cultures......
Traits of Collectivism......
Traits of Individualism......
High and Low Context Cultures......
Low Context Cultures......
Monochromic People
High Context Cultures......
Polychronic People
Large and Small Power Distance Cultures......
Nonverbal Communication Differences Around the World......
Facial Expressions......
Proximity......
Haptics
Silence
Kinesics......
Greetings......
Beckoning......
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN JOB INTERVİEWS......
What to Bring to an Interview......
What Not to Bring to an Interview......
How to Dress for an Interview......
Men's Interview Attire......
Women's Interview Attire......
REFERENCES......
1
CLOTHES
Appearance and dress are part of the total nonverbal stimuli that influence interpersonal responses, and under some conditions they are the primary determinants of such responses.
First we need to answer a basic question: “Do clothes communicate?” Ofcourse our answer will be “YES”… In a survey of 415 personnel executives in the Chicago area, 91 percent claimed that a job applicant’s dress and grooming showed his or her attitude toward the company;95 percent said appropriate dress was a definite aid in careeradvancement.
Clothes also seem to be important to first impressions. Males and females were asked what things they noticed about persons when they first met them. They were given ten characteristics of appearance from which to choose. Females noticed clothes first for both same and opposite-sexed partners; males also looked at clothes first for same-sexed partners, but for members of the opposite sex, clothes took third place behind figure and face (“First Impressions” August/September 1983).
All of the aforementioned incidents suggest clothing is believed to play an important role in interpersonal relations. Lawyers have long known that their client’s manner of dress may have an impact on the judgements made by the judge and/or jury. Some defendants have even been encouraged to put on a simulated wedding ring to offset any prejudice against single persons. To determine whether our judgements of others are ever made on the basis of clothes alone, it is necessary to measure the effects of changing the type of clothing while keeping everything else the same. Experiments by Hoult (1954) were designed on this basis. First, 46 students rated 13 male classmates on such things as “best-looking”, “most likely to succeed”, “most intelligent”, “most like to date or double date with”, “best personality” and “most likely to have as class president”. The 4 men with the highest ratings were told to “dress down”, while the 4 men with the lowest ratings were told to “dress up”. Others were told to dress the same. Two weeks later, ratings were again obtained. Hoult found no evidence that clothes had been influential in changing the ratings, even though the independent ratings of clothes showed they did, indeed, indicate “dressing up” or “dressing down” from the previous outfits. A high correlation between the social closeness of the raters and models and the social ratings prompted Hoult to conduct another study using models who were complete strangers to the raters. In this study, he used photos of male strangers who were rated by 254 students from two colleges. Having obtained independent ratings of clothes and the models’ heads, Hoult was able to place high-ranked outfits on models with low-ranked heads. Lower-ranked clothing was placed on models with higher-ranked heads. He found that higher-ranked clothing was associated with an increase in rank, while lower-ranked clothing was associated with loss of rank. Clothing, then, did seem to be significant factor affecting judgements students made about these strangers.
While Hoult’s work is helpful in demonstrating the communicative value of clothes, an equally important conclusion can be derived from the failure of his first experiment. This first experiment demonstrates one of the conditions under which clothing may not be a highly influential factor in interpersonal perception of others: when the observer is well acquainted with the person being observed. Changes in the clothing of a family member or close friend may indicate a temporary change of mood, but it is likely that we will not perceive any basic change in values, attitudes or personality traits unless the clothing change becomes permanent for that individual. In addition to social closeness to the person being observed, other factors may modify responses to clothes, such as the psychological-social orientation and background of the observer and the particular task or situation within which the observation is made.
Up to this point, we have established that clothing communicates a variety of messages and that the people we interact with respond in various ways to those messages. But what about the effect of clothing on the self-image of the wearer? Gibbins, in his work with fifteen and sixteen-year-old girls, for instance, found a definite relationship between clothes that were liked and ratings of ideal self. In other fascinating discovery, we see a potential link between clothing and self-concept. High-school boys who had higher achievement test scores but who were clothing deemed “unacceptable” by their peers were found to have lower grade point averages than those who were “acceptable” clothing (Hamilton & Warden, 1966). This latter group also found themselves in less conflict and in more school activities.
People adorn themselves with a number of other artifacts such as badges, tattoos, masks, earrings and jewelry. Any discussion of clothing must take these artifacts into consideration because they are also potential communicative stimuli. A ring worn on a particular finger, a fraternity or sorority pin worn in a particular configuration and a single earring worn on a particular ear all may communicate something about the nature of one’s relationships and self-image.
COLOR
People believe colors can affect behavior. For example, the walls of the San Diego city jail were at one time reportedly painted pink, baby blue and peach on the assumption that pastel colors would have a calming effect on the intimates. Following a research study that concluded that looking at pink would make people weaker, (Pelligrini & Schauss, 1980), the San Jose, California, country jail reportedly painted two holding cells “shocking pink” in the belief that prisoner hostility would be reduced. Prisoners seemed less hostile for about fifteen minutes, but soon the hostility reached a peak, and after three hours some prisoners were tearing the paint off the wall. A few years later, researchers again tested pink. This time pink was found to be arousing rather than weakening (Smith, Bell & Fusco, 1986)! More effective results seemed to come from the program that allowed prisoners to paint their cells with colors they chose. These are a few examples of organizations that have tried to use findings from environmental research suggesting that colors, in conjunction with other factors, do influence moods and behavior.
A group of researchers in Munich, Germany, studied the impact of colors on mental growth and social relations. (“Blue Is Beautiful.” 1973). Children who were tested in rooms that thought beautiful scored about twelve points higher on IQ test than those in rooms they thought ugly. Blue, yellow,yellow-green, and orange were considered beautiful; white, black, and brown were considered ugly. The beautifully colored rooms also seemed to stimulate alertness and creativity. In the orange room, these psychologists found that positive social reactions (friendly words,smiles) increased 53 percent, while negative reactions (irritability, hostility) decreased 12 percent.
A series of studies on the color of uniforms worn by football and hockey players pinpointed the complex ways colors may affect behavior. Frank and Gilovich (1988) began by demonstrating that students rated black uniforms as connoting meanness and aggression more than other colors. Then they examined statistics from actual professional games and found that football and hockey teams wearing black uniforms were penalized more than teams wearing other colors. And when a team changed its color to black from some other color, it began getting more penalties!
Mehriban says the most pleasant hues are, in order, blue, green, purple, red, and yellow (Mehriban, 1976). He suggests that the most arousing hue is red, followed by orange, yellow, violet, blue, and green.The results (see Table 1) show that for some mood-tones a single color is significantly related; for others there may be two or more colors (Murray & Deabler, 1957; Wexner, 1954).
1
Table 1:
COLORS AND ASSOCIATED WİTH MOODS:
Mood-ToneColor
Exciting/StimulatingRed
Secure/ComfortableBlue
Distressed/Disturbed/UpsetOrange
Tender/SoothingBlue
Protective/DefendingRed
Brown
Blue
Black
Purple
Despondent/Dejected/Unhappy/MelancholyBlack
Brown
Calm/Peaceful/SereneBlue
Green
Dignified/StatelyPurple
Cheerful/Jovial/JoyfulYellow
Defiant/Contrary/HostileRed
Orange
Black
Powerful/Strong/MasterfulBlack
DESIGN
Hall (1966) has labeled the architecture and objects in our environment as either fixed-feature space and semifixed-feature space. Fixed-feature refers to space organized by unmoving boundaries (rooms of houses); semifixed-feature refers to the arrangement of movable objects such as tables or chairs. Both can have a profound impact on our communication behavior.
At one time in U.S. history, banks were deliberately designed to project an image of strength and security. The design frequently featured large marble pillars, an abundance of metal bars and doors, uncovered floors, and bare walls. This style generally projected a cold, impersonal image to visitors. Later bankers perceived the need to change their environment, to create a friendly, warm, “homey” place where people would enjoy sitting down and discussing their financial needs and problems. Bank interiors began to change. Carpeting was added; wood replaced metal; cushioned chairs were added; plotted plants and art were brought in for additional warmth.
Sometimes we get very definite person or couple-related messages from home environments. The designation of places in the home for certain activities (and not for others); the symbolism attached to various objects in the home; and ways of decorating the home may tell us a lot about the nature of the couple’s relationship (Altman, Brown, Staples, & Warner, 1992). We may be influenced by the mood created by the wallpaper, by the symmetry and/or orderliness of objects displayed, by pictures on the walls, and by the quality and apparent cost of items placed around the house. Most of us have experienced being ushered into a living room that we perceive as “unloving” room. We hesitate to sit down or touch anything because the room seems to say, “This room is for show purposes only; sit, walk, and touch carefully. It takes a lot of time and effort to keep this room neat, clean, and tidy; we don’t want to clean it after you live.” The arrangement of other living rooms seems to say, “Sit down, make yourself comfortable, feel free to talk informally, and don’t worry about spilling things.” Interior decorators and product promotion experts often make experimental and intuitive judgments about the influence of certain colors, objects, shapes, arrangements, and so forth, but few empirical attempts have been made to validate these feelings.
One of the earliest empirical studies to focus on the influence of interior decoration on human responses was conducted by Maslow and Mintz (1956). Maslow and Mintz selected three rooms for study: One was an “ugly” room (designed to give impression of a janitor’s storeroom in disheveled condition); one was a “beautiful” room (complete with carpeting, drapes, and the like); and one was an “average” room (a professor’s office). Subjects sitting in these rooms were asked to rate a series of negative print photographs (to control for color, shading, and so forth) of faces. The experimenters tried to keep all factors, such as time of day, odor, noise, type of seating, and experimenter, constant from room to room so that results could be attributed to the type of room. Results showed that subjects in the beautiful room gave significantly higher ratings on “energy” and “well-being” to the faces than did participants in the ugly room.
Experimenters and subjects alike engaged in various escape behaviors to avoid the ugly room. The ugly room was variously described as producing monotony, fatigue, headache, discontent, sleep, irritability, and hostility. The beautiful room, however, produced feelings of pleasure, comfort, enjoyment, importance, energy, and desire to continue activity. Similar studies found that students do better on tests, rate teachers higher, and solve problems more effectively in “beautiful” rooms than in “ugly” ones (Campbell, 1979; Wollin & Montagre, 1981).
Sometimes it is a powerful force, but sometimes the close relationship between the two parties, an understanding of or tolerance for clutter, positive behavior on the part of other person, and other factors will offset any negative effects emanating from an “ugly” environment.
LIGHTING
Lighting also helps to structure our perceptions of an environment, and these perceptions also may influence the type of messages we send. If we enter a dimly lit or candlelit room, we may talk more softly, sit closer together, and presume that more personal communication will take place (Meer, 1985). When the dim lights are brightened, however, the environment tends to invite less intimate interaction. When dimly lit nightclubs flash on bright lights, it is often a signal that closing time is near and allows patrons some time to make the transition from one mood to another.
The absence of light seems to be a central problem for people who suffer from “seasonal affective disorder.” a form of depression particularly acute in winter months. Therapists have successfully treated these people by exposing them to extremely bright lighting for several hours each morning.
MOVABLE OBJECTS AND SEATING
If we know that the arrangement of certain objects in our environment can help structure communication, it is not surprising that we often try to manipulate objects to elicit certain types of responses. Special, intimate evenings are often highlighted by candlelight, soft music, favorite drinks, fluffed pillows on the couch, and the absence of dirty dishes, trash, impersonal material associated with daily living.
Employees often use objects to personalize their offices. These signs of personal identity make the employee feel more satisfied with his or her work life and provide visitors with information to initiate a conversation. Since the company also wants to communicate its identity, the amount and kind of personal objects employees display must also be consistent with the image the company wants to display. The interior of an executive suite clearly may indicate the perceived status of the inhabitant, for example, expensive paintings, large desk, plush sofa and chairs, drapes, and so forth (Monk,1994).
Desks seem to be important objects in the conduct of interpersonal communication. An experiment set in a doctor’s office suggests that the presence or absence of a desk may significantly alter the patient’s “et ease” state (White, 1953). With the desk separating doctor and patient, only 10 percent of the patients were perceived “at ease”, whereas removal of the desk increased the percentage of “at ease” patients to 55 percent. Student/teacher relationships also seem to be affected by desk placement (Zweigenhaft, 1976).
The arrangement of other items of furniture can facilitate or inhibit communication. Rearranging the furniture to encourage interaction doubled the frequency of resident conversations (Sommer & Ross, 1958). Even when conversational possibilities have been maximized, not everyone will talk to everyone else. The findings about seating behavior and spatial positioning can be summarized under the following categories:
*Leadership
*Dominance
*Task
*Sex and acquaintance
*Motivation
*Introversion-extraversion
1.Leadership:
It seems to be a norm, in he United States at least, that leaders are expected to be found at the head or foot of the table. At a family gathering, we generally find the head of the household sitting at the head of the table. Elected group leaders generally put themselves in the head positions at rectangular tables, and the other group members try to position themselves so they can see the leader.