Haptic communication

Last updated
A boy laughing as he is tickled Laughter by David Shankbone.jpg
A boy laughing as he is tickled

Haptic communication is a branch of nonverbal communication that refers to the ways in which people and animals communicate and interact via the sense of touch. Touch is the most sophisticated and intimate of the five senses. [1] Touch or haptics, from the ancient Greek word haptikos is extremely important for communication; it is vital for survival. [2]

Contents

Touch is the first sense to develop in the fetus. [3] The development of an infant's haptic senses and how it relates to the development of the other senses such as vision has been the target of much research. Human babies have been observed to have enormous difficulty surviving if they do not possess a sense of touch, even if they retain sight and hearing. [4] Infants who can perceive through touch, even without sight and hearing, tend to fare much better. [5]

Similarly to infants, in chimpanzees the sense of touch is highly developed. As newborns they see and hear poorly but cling strongly to their mothers. Harry Harlow conducted a controversial study involving rhesus monkeys and observed that monkeys reared with a "terry cloth mother", a wire feeding apparatus wrapped in softer terry cloth which provided a level of tactile stimulation and comfort, were considerably more emotionally stable as adults than those with a mere "wire mother". For his experiment, he presented the infants with a clothed surrogate mother and a wire surrogate mother which held a bottle with food. It turns out that the rhesus monkeys spent most of their time with the terry cloth mother, over the wire surrogate with a bottle of food, which indicates that they preferred touch, warmth, and comfort over sustenance. [6]

Touch can come in many different forms, some can promote physical and psychological well-being. A warm, loving touch can lead to positive outcomes while a violent touch can ultimately lead to a negative outcome. The sense of touch allows one to experience different sensations such as pleasure, pain, heat, or cold. One of the most significant aspects of touch is the ability to convey and enhance physical intimacy. [7] The sense of touch is the fundamental component of haptic communication for interpersonal relationships. Touch can be categorized in many terms such as positive, playful, control, ritualistic, task-related or unintentional. It can be both sexual (kissing is one example that some perceived as sexual), and platonic (such as hugging or a handshake). Striking, pushing, pulling, pinching, kicking, strangling and hand-to-hand fighting are forms of touch in the context of physical abuse.

Categories

Heslin outlines five haptic categories: [8]

Functional/professional
expresses task-orientation
Social/polite
expresses ritual interaction
Friendship/warmth
expresses idiosyncratic relationship
Love/intimacy
expresses emotional attachment
Sexual/arousal
expresses sexual intent

The intent of a touch is not always exclusive and touching can evolve to each one of Heslin's categories.

Functional/professional

Managers should know the effectiveness of using touch while communicating to subordinates, but need to be cautious and understand how touch can be misunderstood. A hand on the shoulder for one person may mean a supportive gesture, while it could mean a sexual advance to another person. Working with others and using touch to communicate, a manager needs to be aware of each person's touch tolerance.

Henley's research found that a person in power is more likely to touch a subordinate, but the subordinate is not free to touch in kind. Touch is a powerful nonverbal communication tool and this different standard between a superior and subordinate can lead to confusion whether the touch is motivated by dominance or intimacy according to Borisoff and Victor. [9]

Walton [10] stated in his book that touching is the ultimate expression of closeness or confidence between two people, but not seen often in business or formal relationships. Touching stresses how special the message is that is being sent by the initiator. "If a word of praise is accompanied by a touch on the shoulder, that's the gold star on the ribbon," wrote Walton.

The most common use of haptic touch in business is the handshake. A handshake in the business world is key to giving a good first impression. However, there are different forms of the handshake that can be given in an appropriate situation which include: a firm handshake (communicates confidence and strength), a limp handshake (conveys weakness and dishonesty), a clasp (use of both hands displays a high level of respect), and a handshake with grip (displays intimidation and dominance). [11]

Social/polite

Moving from one haptic category to another can become blurred by culture. There are many areas in the United States where a touch on the forearm is accepted as socially correct and polite. However, in the Midwest, this is not always an acceptable behavior.

The initial connection to another person in a professional setting usually starts off with a touch, specifically a handshake. A person's handshake can speak volumes about them and their personality. Chiarella wrote an article for Esquire magazine explaining to the predominantly male readership how handshakes differ from person to person and how they send nonverbal messages. He mentioned that holding the grip longer than two seconds will result in a stop in the verbal conversation, thus the nonverbal will override the verbal communication.

A handshake is not only limited to a professional setting but as well an important aspect of youth's team sports. Hamilton wrote that the handshake represents the end-of-game as an embodied ritual, form of intimate touch, and legal gesture. [12] These handshakes also vary in types, with the formal business handshake that usually occurs in job and formal settings. In the end-of-game embodied ritual, this usually has high fives in a post game line. There is also the traditional dap up in certain social settings, a different type of handshake that can also serve as a greeting, departure, or overall a symbol of friendship. The word dap serves as an acronym for dignity and pride and signifies that the two people shake hands are equals in regards to one another. This handshake originated within the Vietnam War between black G.I.s as a way to combat the segregation faced within the war. [13]

Jones explained communication with touch as the most intimate and involving form which helps people to keep good relationships with others. [14] His study with Yarbrough covered touch sequences and individual touches.

Touch sequences fall into two different types, repetitive and strategic. Repetitive is when one person touches and the other person reciprocates. The majority of these touches are considered positive. Strategic touching is a series of touching usually with an ulterior or hidden motive thus making them seem to be using touch as a game to get someone to do something for them.

More common than the sequential touches are the individual or single touches. They must be read by using the total context of what was said, the nature of the relationship and what kind of social setting was involved when the person was touched.

Yarbrough designed a blueprint for how to touch. She designated the different body areas as to whether they are 'touchable' or not. Non-vulnerable body parts (NVBP) are the hand, arm, shoulder and upper back, and vulnerable body parts (VBP) are all other body regions.

Civil inattention is defined as the polite way to manage interaction with strangers by not engaging in any interpersonal communication or needing to respond to a stranger's touch. Goffman uses an elevator study to explain this phenomenon. [15] It is uncommon for people to look at, talk to, or touch the person next to them. While it may be so crowded that they 'touch' another person, they will often maintain an expressionless demeanor so not to affect those around them.

Friendship/warmth

It is more acceptable for women to touch than men in social or friendship settings, possibly because of the inherent dominance of the person touching over the person being touched. Women and girls are more commonly known for interacting with each other through touch than men and boys are. This is thought to be because same-sex touch is acceptable for women. [16] Whitcher and Fisher conducted a study to see whether friendly touch in a healthcare setting reduced anxiety equally or differently between men and women. [17] A nurse was told to touch patients for one minute while the patients looked at a pamphlet during a routine preoperative procedure. Females reacted positively to the touch, whereas males did not. It was surmised that males equated the touch to being treated as inferior or dependent.

Touching among family members has been found to affect the behavior of those involved. Touch is a way that a child can express positive emotion. For example, physical affection, like hugs, can serve as an overt display of love. Various factors are at work within a family setting. As a child grows older, the amount of touching by the parent decreases although it does continue to be an important social behavior for that child to communicate positive or negative emotions later in their future. [18]

Love and intimacy

Healthy touch

The primary nonverbal behavior that has the biggest effect on interpersonal relationships is touch. The amount of touching increases as a relationship moves from impersonal to personal.

Three areas of public touch between couples have been studied: the amount of touch between a couple in the initial stages of a romantic relationship; how much touching goes on between the couple, and the extent of touching with the amount of touch men and women displayed and who initiated the touch and when they initiated it.

Public touch can serve as a tie sign that shows others that one's partner is "taken". [19] When a couple is holding hands or putting their arms around each other, this is a tie sign showing others that they are together. Tie signs are used more often by couples in the dating and courtship stages than between their married counterparts according to Burgoon, Buller, and Woodall. [20]

Studies have also shown a difference between the sexes on who touches when. In the initial stages of a relationship, men often follow socially prescribed gender roles. Patterson indicated that men fulfilling this social role would touch more and after initial touch in casual relationships and as the relationship became more intimate during serious dating or marriage relationships, women would touch more. [21] American culture still dictates that men "make the first move" in the context of dating and relationships.

Touching between married couples may help maintain good health. In a study by University of Virginia psychologist Jim Coan, women under stress showed signs of immediate relief by merely holding their husband's hand. This seemed to be effective when the woman was part of a satisfying marriage.

Violence

Touching in intimate relationships may also be violent at times. McEwan and Johnson categorize violent touch in relationships into two categories: intimate terrorism and common couple violence. [22] Intimate terrorism is characterized by an escalating need to control or dominate a relationship with high frequency and severity. Common couple violence, on the other hand, is often a result of minor conflict, is less frequent and severe, and does not escalate over time. These definitions encompass the types of violence within a situation regarding a couple, both intimate terrorism and common couple violence. On a broader spectrum there is also domestic violence that regards all types of violence including emotional, physical, or sexual. But, instead of only in a couple situation, domestic violence is not limited to just that, it also defines situations with any family member or people who live together. This includes roommates as well and also includes different types of abuse such as child, elder, or marital abuse. [23]

Sexual/arousal

According to Givens, the process of nonverbal communication or negotiation is to send and receive messages in an attempt to gain someone's approval or love. Courtship, which may lead to love, is defined as a nonverbal message designed to attract sexual partners. During courtship, we exchange nonverbal communication gestures to tell each other to come nearer and nearer until we touch. Essential signals in the path to intimacy include facial nuzzles, kissing and caressing each other.

Courtship has five phases which include the attention phase, recognition phase, conversation phase, touching phase, and the love-making phase. Haptics takes place more during the last two phases.

The touching phase:
First touch: Is likely to be more "accidental" than premeditated by touching a neutral body part and where the recipient either accepts the touch or rejects it through body movement.

Hugging: The embrace is the most basic way of telling someone that you love them and possibly need them, too.

Intention to touch: A nonverbal communication haptic code or cue is the intention behind it. Reaching your hand across the table to a somewhat unknown person is used as a way to show readiness to touch.

Kissing: Moving in concert by turning heads to allow for the lips to touch is the final part of the fourth stage of courtship, the kiss.

The final phase, love-making, which includes tactile stimulation during foreplay known as the light or protopathic touch. Any feelings of fear or apprehension may be calmed through other touching like kissing, nuzzling, and a gentle massage.

Context of touch

There are various contexts and dimensions that touch can interpret. These dimensions that many have described include intensity, duration, location, frequency, and instrument of touch.

Meanings

Touch research conducted by Jones and Yarbrough revealed 18 different meanings of touch, grouped in seven types: Positive affect (emotion), playfulness, control, ritual, hybrid (mixed), task-related, and accidental touch.

Positive affect

These touches communicate positive emotions and occur mostly between persons who have close relationships. These touches can be further classified as support, appreciation, inclusion, sexual interest or intent, and affection. Research has shown that hugging can reduce levels of the stress hormone cortisol. [25]

Playful

These touches serve to lighten an interaction. These touches communicate a double message since they always involve a play signal, either verbal or nonverbal, which indicates the behavior is not to be taken seriously. These touches can be further classified as affectionate and aggressive.

Control

An Afghan police officer pats a child on the head. Defense.gov photo essay 110926-F-RN211-071.jpg
An Afghan police officer pats a child on the head.

These touches serve to direct the behavior, attitude, or feeling state of the recipient. The key feature of these touches is that almost all of the touches are initiated by the person who attempts influence. These touches can be further classified as compliance, attention-getting, and announcing a response.

Ritualistic

These touches consist of greeting and departure touches. They serve no other function than to help make transitions in and out of focused interaction.

These touches can differ depending on the location the social interaction is taking place. For example, in Japan a common greeting and departure is to bow to someone when greeting them. For the Maori people, a tribe in New Zealand, people often rub noses to initiate a greeting, where two people press their forehead together and rub their noses with each other. These greetings are seen as a social norm due to their geographic location, depending on the location these types of greeting and departure touches will not be seen as socially acceptable. There is also differences within geographic locations as well, it then comes down to the formality of a setting. In America, it is common for people to greet friends with a hug, but in the setting of a job or an interview, one would normally have the greeting of a handshake instead. Socially dorms dictate much of the ritualistic behavior that is initiated. [28]

Hybrid

These touches involve two or more of the meanings described above. These touches can be further classified as greeting/affection and departure/affection.

Greeting/affection: Express affection and acknowledgement of the initiation of an encounter

Departure/affection: Express affection and serve to close an encounter

These touches are directly associated with the performance of a task. These touches can be further classified as:

Accidental

These touches are perceived as unintentional and have no meaning. They consist mainly of brushes. Research by Martin in a retailing context found that male and female shoppers who were accidentally touched from behind by other shoppers left a store earlier than people who had not been touched and evaluated brands more negatively, resulting in the Accidental Interpersonal Touch effect. [29]

Culture

The amount of touching that occurs within a culture is largely based on the relative high context or low context of the culture.

High contact

In a high contact culture, many things are not verbally stated but are expressed through physical touch. For instance, Cheek kissing is a very common method of greeting in Latin America, but among Northern Europeans it is an uncommon form of greeting. Different cultures have different display rules, the degree with which emotions are expressed. Cultural display rules also affect the degree to which individuals share their personal space, gaze and physical contact during interactions. In a High contact culture, such as South America, Latin America, Southern Europe, Africa, Russia, the Middle East and others, people tend to share more physical contact. High contact cultures communicate through long gazes, long hugs, and share a decrease in proxemics. [30]

Low contact

Low contact cultures such as: The United States, Canada, Northern Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Asia prefer infrequent touching, larger physical distance, indirect body orientations (during interaction) along with little share gazes. [30] In the Thai culture, kissing a friend on the cheek is less common than in the Latin Americas. Remland and Jones studied groups of people communicating and found that in England (8%), France (5%) and the Netherlands (4%), touching was rare compared to the Italian (14%) and Greek (12.5%) samples. [31]

Internal differences

Frequency of touch also varies significantly between different cultures. Harper refers to several studies, one of which examined touching in coffee houses. During a one-hour sitting 180 touchings were observed for Puerto Ricans, 110 for French, none for English and 2 for Americans. (Harper, 297). In order to know if someone was touching more frequently than normal it would be necessary to first know what is normal in that culture. In high touch countries a kiss on the cheek is considered a polite greeting while in Sweden it may be considered presumptuous. Jandt relates that two men holding hands will in some countries be a sign of friendly affection, whereas in the United States the same tactile code would probably be interpreted as a symbol of homosexual love.

Emotion and touch

Recently, researchers have shown that touch communicates distinct emotions such as anger, fear, happiness, sympathy, love, and gratitude. [32] Moreover, the accuracy with which subjects were capable of communicating the emotions were commensurate with facial and vocal displays of emotion. [33]

Depression has been linked to touch deprivation in adults and research has established associations between touch deprivation and eating disorders. Men have been found more likely to experience touch deprivation than women due to stronger social prohibitions against same-sex touching among adult males. [34]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Burgoon, Judee K.; Guerrero, Laura K.; Floyd, Kory (2010). Nonverbal Communication. Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN   9780205525003.
  2. ↑ Field, Tiffany. "The Importance of Touch." Karger Gazette, misc.karger.com/gazette/67/Field/art_4.htm. Accessed 25 Apr. 2017.
  3. ↑ Pediatrix Medical Group, editor. "How Babies' Sense Develop." 2015. Accessed 11 Apr. 2017.
  4. ↑ Montgomery, Marilyn J.; Whiddon, Melody A. (2011). "Is Touch Beyond Infancy Important for Children's Mental Health?" (PDF). American Counseling Association.
  5. ↑ Leonard, Crystal. "The Sense of Touch and How It Affects Development." The Sense of Touch and How It Affects Development, 14 May 2009, serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/crystal-leonard/sense-touch-and-how-it-affects-development. Accessed 11 Apr. 2017.
  6. ↑ Vicedo, Marga (2010), "The evolution of Harry Harlow: from the nature to the nurture of love" (PDF), History of Psychiatry, 21 (2): 190–205, doi:10.1177/0957154X10370909, PMID   21877372, S2CID   38140414 , retrieved 2019-11-19
  7. ↑ "That human touch that means so much: Exploring the tactile dimension of social life | Magazine issue 2/2013 - Issue 17 | In-Mind". www.in-mind.org. Retrieved 2019-11-20.
  8. ↑ Heslin, R. (1974, May) Steps toward a taxonomy of touching. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
  9. ↑ Borisoff, Deborah; Victor, David A. (1989). Conflict management: A communication skills approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ISBN   0205272940.[ page needed ]
  10. ↑ Walton, Donald (1989). Are you communicating? You can't manage without it. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing. ISBN   007068054X.[ page needed ]
  11. ↑ Bailey, Britton (2018-04-01). "The Importance of Nonverbal Communication in Business and How Professors at the University of North Georgia Train Students on the Subject". Honors Theses.
  12. ↑ Hamilton, Sheryl N. (2017-01-02). "Rituals of intimate legal touch: regulating the end-of-game handshake in pandemic culture". The Senses and Society. 12 (1): 53–68. doi:10.1080/17458927.2017.1268821. ISSN   1745-8927. S2CID   152146274.
  13. ↑ Hamilton, LaMont (22 September 2014). "Five on the Black Hand Side: Origins and Evolutions of the Dap". Smithsonian Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage.
  14. ↑ Jones, Stanley E.; Yarbrough, A. Elaine (2009). "A naturalistic study of the meanings of touch". Communication Monographs. 52 (1): 19–56. doi:10.1080/03637758509376094.
  15. ↑ Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places, New York: Free Press.
  16. ↑ Bosson, Jennifer K.; Vandello, Joseph A.; Buckner, Camille E. (2018). The Psychology of Sex and Gender. SAGE Publications. ISBN   978-1-5443-1039-8.[ page needed ]
  17. ↑ Whitcher, Sheryle J.; Fisher, Jeffrey D. (1979). "Multidimensional reaction to therapeutic touch in a hospital setting". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37 (1): 87–96. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.87. PMID   458550.
  18. ↑ Bai, Sunhye; Repetti, Rena L.; Sperling, Jacqueline B. (January 2016). "Children's expressions of positive emotion are sustained by smiling, touching, and playing with parents and siblings: A naturalistic observational study of family life". Developmental Psychology. 52 (1): 88–101. doi:10.1037/a0039854. PMC   4695297 . PMID   26524382.
  19. ↑ Morris, D. (1977), Manwatching: A field guide to human behavior. New York: Abrams.
  20. ↑ Burgoon, Judee K.; Buller, David B.; Woodall, William Gill (1996). Nonverbal Communication: The Unspoken Dialogue. McGraw-Hill. ISBN   978-0-07-008995-2.[ page needed ]
  21. ↑ Patterson, M. L. (1988). "Functions of nonverbal behavior in close relationships". In Duck, Steve (ed.). Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions. Wiley. pp. 41–56. ISBN   978-0-471-91491-4.
  22. ↑ McEwan, B., and Johnson, S.L. Relational Violence: The Darkest Side of Haptic Communication. The Nonverbal Communication Reader. Ed. L.K. Guerrero and M.L. Hall. 3rd ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland P, 2008. 232-39.
  23. ↑ Patra, P.; Prakash, Jyoti; Patra, B; Khanna, Puneet (2018). "Intimate partner violence: Wounds are deeper". Indian Journal of Psychiatry. 60 (4): 494–498. doi: 10.4103/psychiatry.IndianJPsychiatry_74_17 . PMC   6278226 . PMID   30581217.
  24. ↑ Burgoon, Judee K; Guerrero, Laura K; Floyd, Kory (2010). Nonverbal Communication. Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN   9780205525003.
  25. ↑ The Life of the Skin-Hungry: Can You Go Crazy from a Lack Of Touch? VICE. Published 8 November 2016. Retrieved 14 July 2018.
  26. ↑ Hart, Jennifer (May 1, 2015). "Playful Aggression and the Situational Contexts That Affect Perceptions". UNLV.
  27. ↑ Hart, Jennifer L.; Tannock, Michelle T. (September 2013). "Playful Aggression in Early Childhood Settings". Children Australia. 38 (3): 106–114. doi:10.1017/cha.2013.14. S2CID   143474235.
  28. ↑ "5.2: Types of Nonverbal Communication". Social Sci LibreTexts. 2020-05-22. Retrieved 2023-12-04.
  29. ↑ Martin, Brett A. S. (2012). "A Stranger's Touch: Effects of Accidental Interpersonal Touch on Consumer Evaluations and Shopping Time" (PDF). Journal of Consumer Research. 39 (1): 174–84. doi:10.1086/662038.
  30. 1 2 McCornack, Steven (2017). Choices and Connections, An Introduction to Communication. Bedford. pp. 141–150. ISBN   978-1-319-04352-0.
  31. ↑ Remland, Martin S.; Jones, Tricia S.; Brinkman, Heidi (June 1995). "Interpersonal Distance, Body Orientation, and Touch: Effects of Culture, Gender, and Age". The Journal of Social Psychology. 135 (3): 281–297. doi:10.1080/00224545.1995.9713958. PMID   7650932.
  32. ↑ Hertenstein M. J., Keltner D., App B. Bulleit, Jaskolka A. (2006). "Touch communicates distinct emotions". Emotion. 6 (3): 528–533. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.421.2391 . doi:10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.528. PMID   16938094.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  33. ↑ Hertenstein M. J., Verkamp J., Kerestes A., Holmes R. (2006). "The communicative functions of touch in humans, non-human primates and rats: A review and synthesis of the empirical research". Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs. 132 (1): 5–94. doi:10.3200/mono.132.1.5-94. PMID   17345871. S2CID   6699845.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  34. ↑ What is touch deprivation? Archived 2018-07-15 at the Wayback Machine enotes. Published 7 April 2016. Retrieved 14 July 2018.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Physical intimacy</span> Sensuous proximity or touching

Physical intimacy is sensuous proximity or touching. It is an act or reaction, such as an expression of feelings, between people. Examples of physical intimacy include being inside someone's personal space, holding hands, hugging, kissing, caressing and sexual activity. Physical intimacy can often convey the real meaning or intention of an interaction in a way that accompanying speech cannot do. Physical intimacy can be exchanged between any people but as it is often used to communicate positive and intimate feelings, it most often occurs in people who have a preexisting relationship, whether familial, platonic or romantic, with romantic relationships having increased physical intimacy. Several forms of romantic touch have been noted including holding hands, hugging, kissing, cuddling, as well as caressing and massaging. Physical affection is highly correlated with overall relationship and partner satisfaction.

Proxemics is the study of human use of space and the effects that population density has on behavior, communication, and social interaction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hug</span> Form of endearment

A hug is a form of endearment, found in virtually all human communities, in which two or more people put their arms around the neck, back, or waist of one another and hold each other closely. If more than two people are involved, it may be referred to as a group hug.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Body language</span> Type of nonverbal communication

Body language is a type of communication in which physical behaviors, as opposed to words, are used to express or convey information. Such behavior includes facial expressions, body posture, gestures, eye movement, touch and the use of space. The term body language is usually applied in regard to people but may also be applied to animals. The study of body language is also known as kinesics. Although body language is an important part of communication, most of it happens without conscious awareness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nonverbal communication</span> Interpersonal communication through wordless (mostly visual) cues

Nonverbal communication (NVC) is the transmission of messages or signals through a nonverbal platform such as eye contact (oculesics), body language (kinesics), social distance (proxemics), touch (haptics), voice (paralanguage), physical environments/appearance, and use of objects. When communicating, we utilize nonverbal channels as means to convey different messages or signals, whereas others can interpret these message. The study of nonverbal communication started in 1872 with the publication of The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals by Charles Darwin. Darwin began to study nonverbal communication as he noticed the interactions between animals such as lions, tigers, dogs etc. and realized they also communicated by gestures and expressions. For the first time, nonverbal communication was studied and its relevance questioned. Today, scholars argue that nonverbal communication can convey more meaning than verbal communication.

Expectancy violations theory (EVT) is a theory of communication that analyzes how individuals respond to unanticipated violations of social norms and expectations. The theory was proposed by Judee K. Burgoon in the late 1970s and continued through the 1980s and 1990s as "nonverbal expectancy violations theory", based on Burgoon's research studying proxemics. Burgoon's work initially analyzed individuals' allowances and expectations of personal distance and how responses to personal distance violations were influenced by the level of liking and relationship to the violators. The theory was later changed to its current name when other researchers began to focus on violations of social behavior expectations beyond nonverbal communication.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oculesics</span>

Oculesics, a subcategory of kinesics, is the study of eye movement, behavior, gaze, and eye-related nonverbal communication. The term's specific designation slightly varies apropos of the field of study. Communication scholars use the term "oculesics" to refer to the investigation of culturally-fluctuating propensities and appreciations of visual attention, gaze and other implicitly effusive elements of the eyes. Comparatively, medical professionals may ascribe the same appellation to the measurement of a patient's ocular faculty, especially subsequent a cerebral or other injury.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chronemics</span> Study of the role of time in communication

Chronemics is an anthropological, philosophical, and linguistic subdiscipline that describes how time is perceived, coded, and communicated across a given culture. It is one of several subcategories to emerge from the study of nonverbal communication. According to the Encyclopedia of Special Education, "Chronemics includes time orientation, understanding and organisation, the use of and reaction to time pressures, the innate and learned awareness of time, by physically wearing or not wearing a watch, arriving, starting, and ending late or on time." A person's perception and values placed on time plays a considerable role in their communication process. The use of time can affect lifestyles, personal relationships, and work life. Across cultures, people usually have different time perceptions, and this can result in conflicts between individuals. Time perceptions include punctuality, interactions, and willingness to wait.

Interpersonal deception theory (IDT) is one of a number of theories that attempts to explain how individuals handle actual deception at the conscious or subconscious level while engaged in face-to-face communication. The theory was put forth by David Buller and Judee Burgoon in 1996 to explore this idea that deception is an engaging process between receiver and deceiver. IDT assumes that communication is not static; it is influenced by personal goals and the meaning of the interaction as it unfolds. IDT is no different from other forms of communication since all forms of communication are adaptive in nature. The sender's overt communications are affected by the overt and covert communications of the receiver, and vice versa. IDT explores the interrelation between the sender's communicative meaning and the receiver's thoughts and behavior in deceptive exchanges.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social information processing (theory)</span>

Social information processing theory, also known as SIP, is a psychological and sociological theory originally developed by Salancik and Pfeffer in 1978. This theory explores how individuals make decisions and form attitudes in a social context, often focusing on the workplace. It suggests that people rely heavily on the social information available to them in their environments, including input from colleagues and peers, to shape their attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions.

Social presence theory explores how the "sense of being with another" is influenced by digital interfaces in human-computer interactions. Developed from the foundations of interpersonal communication and symbolic interactionism, social presence theory was first formally introduced by John Short, Ederyn Williams, and Bruce Christie in The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. Research on social presence theory has recently developed to examine the efficacy of telecommunications media, including SNS communications. The theory notes that computer-based communication is lower in social presence than face-to-face communication, but different computer-based communications can affect the levels of social presence between communicators and receivers.

Judee K. Burgoon is a professor of communication, family studies and human development at the University of Arizona, where she serves as director of research for the Center for the Management of Information and site director for the NSF-sponsored Center for Identification Technology Research. She is also involved with different aspects of interpersonal and nonverbal communication, deception, and new communication technologies. She is also director of human communication research for the Center for the Management of Information and site director for Center for Identification Technology Research at the university, and recently held an appointment as distinguished visiting professor with the department of communication at the University of Oklahoma, and the Center for Applied Social Research at the University of Oklahoma. Burgoon has authored or edited 13 books and monographs and has published nearly 300 articles, chapters and reviews related to nonverbal and verbal communication, deception, and computer-mediated communication. Her research has garnered over $13 million in extramural funding from the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Counterintelligence Field Activity, and the National Institutes of Mental Health. Among the communication theories with which she is most notably linked are: interpersonal adaptation theory, expectancy violations theory, and interpersonal deception theory. A recent survey identified her as the most prolific female scholar in communication in the 20th century.

Cognitive valence theory (CVT) is a theoretical framework that describes and explains the process of intimacy exchange within a dyad relationship. Peter A. Andersen, PhD created the cognitive valence theory to answer questions regarding intimacy relationships among colleagues, close friends and intimate friends, married couples and family members. Intimacy or immediacy behavior is that behavior that provides closeness or distance within a dyad relationship. Closeness projects a positive feeling in a relationship, and distance projects a negative feeling within a relationship. Intimacy or immediacy behavior can be negatively valenced or positively valenced. Valence, associated with physics, is used here to describe the degree of negativity or positivity in expected information. If your partner perceives your actions as negative, then the interaction may repel your partner away from you. If your partner perceives your actions as positive, then the interaction may be accepted and may encourage closeness. Affection and intimacy promotes positive valence in a relationship. CVT uses non-verbal and verbal communications criteria to analyze behavioral situations.

Power and dominance-submission are two key dimensions of relationships, especially close relationships in which parties rely on one another to achieve their goals and as such it is important to be able to identify indicators of dominance.

Affective haptics is the emerging area of research which focuses on the study and design of devices and systems that can elicit, enhance, or influence the emotional state of a human by means of sense of touch. The research field is originated with the Dzmitry Tsetserukou and Alena Neviarouskaya papers on affective haptics and real-time communication system with rich emotional and haptic channels. Driven by the motivation to enhance social interactivity and emotionally immersive experience of users of real-time messaging, virtual, augmented realities, the idea of reinforcing (intensifying) own feelings and reproducing (simulating) the emotions felt by the partner was proposed. Four basic haptic (tactile) channels governing our emotions can be distinguished:

  1. physiological changes
  2. physical stimulation
  3. social touch
  4. emotional haptic design.
<span class="mw-page-title-main">Interpersonal communication</span> Exchange of information among people

Interpersonal communication is an exchange of information between two or more people. It is also an area of research that seeks to understand how humans use verbal and nonverbal cues to accomplish several personal and relational goals. Communication includes utilizing communication skills within one's surroundings, including physical and psychological spaces. It is essential to see the visual/nonverbal and verbal cues regarding the physical spaces. In the psychological spaces, self-awareness and awareness of the emotions, cultures, and things that are not seen are also significant when communicating.

Affiliative conflict theory (ACT) is a social psychological approach that encompasses interpersonal communication and has a background in nonverbal communication. This theory postulates that "people have competing needs or desires for intimacy and autonomy". In any relationship, people will negotiate and try to rationalize why they are acting the way they are in order to maintain a comfortable level of intimacy.

Nonverbal influence is the act of affecting or inspiring change in others' behaviors and attitudes by way of tone of voice or body language and other cues like facial expression. This act of getting others to embrace or resist new attitudes can be achieved with or without the use of spoken language. It is a subtopic of nonverbal communication. Many individuals instinctively associate persuasion with verbal messages. Nonverbal influence emphasizes the persuasive power and influence of nonverbal communication. Nonverbal influence includes appeals to attraction, similarity and intimacy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tie signs</span> Clues pointing to a relationship

Tie signs are signs, signals, and symbols, that are revealed through people's actions as well as objects such as engagement rings, wedding bands, and photographs of a personal nature that suggest a relationship exists between two people. For romantic couples, public displays of affection (PDA) including things like holding hands, an arm around a partner's shoulders or waist, extended periods of physical contact, greater-than-normal levels of physical proximity, grooming one's partner, and “sweet talk” are all examples of common tie signs. Tie signs inform the participants, as well as outsiders, about the nature of a relationship, its condition, and even what stage a relationship is in.

Motivation impairment effect (MIE) is a hypothesised behavioral effect relating to the communication of deception. The MIE posits that people who are highly motivated to deceive are less successful in their goal when their speech and mannerisms are observed by the intended audience. This is because their nonverbal cues, such as adaptor gestures, sweating, kinesic behaviors, verbal disfluencies, etc, tend to be more pronounced due to increased stress, cognitive load, and heightened emotional state. There is some disagreement regarding the MIE hypothesis, with a few nonverbal communication scholars arguing that deception should not be examined as separate for senders and receivers, but rather as an integral part of the overall process.

References

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.