Nonverbal Communication Research

The study of nonverbal communication has long been a major field of research in the Communications discipline. However, it wasn’t until Edward T. Hall’s work in the 1950’s that cultural differences in nonverbal communication became an area of formal academic interest in a variety of other fields such as Anthropology, Sociology, and Psychology. In the broadest sense, nonverbal communication is defined as “all the messages other than words that people exchange in interactive contexts” (Hecht et. al., 1999). Most research involving nonverbal communication focus on several general codes of nonverbal signals including: kinesics, vocalics or paralanguage, proxemics, haptics, oculesics, chronemics, appearance, and artifacts.

4.1 Kinesics

Kinesics is the study of communication through corporeal movements. Every culture has a distinct set of movements to communicate nonverbally including body posture, facial expressions, hand gestures, and movement. As with oral communication, there is no universal code for what these movements mean in all societies. Furthermore, since most of these nonverbal signals are neither sent nor received on a conscious level, it is difficult to interpret their precise social meaning without considering cultural and contextual factors. Some aspects of kinesics such as hand gestures are very much culture bound, while other aspects are less conscious reflections of attitude and engagement.

Consequently, lists of gestures and their meanings are useless without accompanying reference to the specific contexts in which the gestures and movements are observed (Duke, 1974).

Americans are comparatively more expressive than the Chinese in terms of hand gestures to embellish and add emphasis to oral communication. The Chinese tend to be more subtle and formal in terms of body language and gestures. Several nonverbal communication researchers, however, have noted that gestures are conspicuously limited or absent in more formal levels of communication, and most common in casual or intimate interaction (Kirch, 1979). As such, it is important to note that the use of gestures is varied and adjusted according to contextual factors.

4.2 Vocalics

Vocalics, which is closely related to paralanguage, includes all the vocal cues other than words. Various aspects of voice can be measured such as pitch level and variability, duration of sounds, pauses and response time, volume, resonance, articulation, rate, rhythm, and the use of vocal filler sounds. These aspects of vocalics can be altered and refined to communicate key elements of an individual’s personality, mood, and cultural background.

While Americans typically rely on words as the most important vehicle of

communication, the Chinese tend to transmit the most important information via nonverbal channels such as tone of voice and the use of silence (Tung, 1991). Graham and Sano (1989) argue that Americans usually focus more on the less important, worded task-related information. As a result, they tend to ignore the more informative nonverbal channel of communication. The use and interpretation of nonverbal modes of communication play an integral role in the negotiation process. For example, the Chinese usually use long moments of silence to contemplate the issue at hand, or when an impasse is reached.

Conversely, the American style of communication generally contains only a few long silence periods. As a result, the common American negotiator’s reaction to silence is to try to fill it with either words or even concessions. Thus, Chinese negotiators have been noted to use silence as a bargaining tactic against Americans (Hall and Hall, 1987).

4.3 Proxemics

Proxemics focuses on how people use space to communicate. Each culture prescribes appropriate distances for various levels of communication. Violations of these spatial rules tend to cause discomfort, anxiety, misunderstandings, and even offense. A lack of awareness about t he importance of distance in communication can create barriers to communication. Hall (1959, 1996) outlines four zones of personal space which have communicational significance in American culture. These spatial distances are: (1) intimate zone – for intimate relationships; (2) personal zone – for close friends and family;

(3) social zone – for acquaintances and colleagues; and (4) public zone – for strangers. In most instances, distance is determined by social and cultural norms, as well as by the unique patterns of those interacting.

In negotiation research, the discussion of proxemics is usually related to seating positions and arrangements at the negotiation table. Duke (1974) conducted an in depth study on people’s behaviors in meetings and negotiation. His research revealed that the arrangement of seating affects the amount of interaction that occurs. More specifically, his findings suggest that leaders gravitate toward end (observational) positions at rectangular tables; whereas individuals who make the most vocal contributions tend to sit in a central

position on either side of the table (Goffman, 1963). Intuitively, this pattern makes sense since directly-opposing positions offer full visibility, which is more conducive to frequent conversation. Similarly, positions at the ends of the negotiating table provide a supervisory vantage point, without the precondition of constant eye-contact.

4.4 Haptics

Haptics and Oculesics are the more sensory aspects of nonverbal communication.

They relate to physical contact and eye contact, respectively. Haptics, or touching, is closely related to proxemics and is a basic form of routine human interaction. The type of bodily contact deemed appropriate is deeply rooted in cultural values. Cultures tend to vary along the dimension commonly referred to as high contact – low contact. High contact cultures are characterized by a comparatively high degree of touching, whereas low contact cultures are characterized relatively low degree of bodily contact. Like proxemics, however, haptics are largely affected by relational and situational factors.

4.5 Oculesics

Studies in oculesics, or gaze, have shown considerable variation in the degree of comfort with eye contact across cultures as well as subcultures. Some cultures, such as the United States, are very comfortable with and to a certain extent, expect eye contact to demonstrate attention, respect, and truthfulness. However, other cultures attempt to avoid eye contact for fear of being rude and disrespectful. This type of deliberate gaze aversion is evident in the Chinese culture, where prolonged eye contact is considered very rude and disrespectful. Variations in oculesic guidelines also exist within cultures particularly in terms of gender and age. In many cultures, there tend to be differences between males and females in terms of maintenance and duration of gaze. Similarly, age differentials have been noted to denote certain guidelines related to gaze – typically with the younger interactant averting the gaze as a sign of deference and respect.

Several negotiation theorists discuss cross-cultural differences in nonverbal

expressive behaviors that are likely to impact negotiations (George, 1998; LeBaron, 2003;

Hendon et. al, 1996). These discussions typically differentiate between high-contact versus low-contact cultures. High-contact cultures are characterized by a heavy use of touching during communication, contact greetings, and small personal space (Hall, 1966; Hall and Hall, 1990). Conversely, low -contact cultures are characterized by very little physical contact during communication. Axtell (1998) developed three broad classifications of countries according to the degree of touching: no touching (e.g. Japan, United States, and England), moderate touching (e.g. Australia, China, and India), and touching (e.g. Latin America, Italy, and Greece). Therefore, the touch behavior that is regarded as proper in one culture may be quite inappropriate in another. In international business and negotiation settings, however, physical contact is typically restrained to handshakes at the beginning and conclusion of communications.

4.6 Chronemics

Chronemics concerns the way people perceive and manage time. The use of time can be seen as a message system, communicating certain messages through punctuality, the amount of time spent with another, as well as waiting time. Different temporal attitudes generally fall within the spectrum of monochronic versus polychronic time. Monochronic cultures are highly conscious of time and schedules, which tend to promote certain expectations regarding punctuality, promptness, planning, and prioritizing. These cultures typically view time as linear and sequential with one activity or event taking place at a time.

Polychronic cultures, on the other hand, view time in a more cyclical and flexible way.

Unlike monochronic cultures that tightly compartmentalize time, polychronic cultures tend to perceive time more synchronously, allowing several activities to occur simultaneously (Cullen, J. and K. Parboteeah (2005).

The U.S. is a highly polychronic culture, which tends to worship time and manage it as though it were a scarce and tangible resource. This is reflected in their “time is money attitude” that espouses the values of promptness and punctuality. Planning and schedules are of the utmost importance to polychronic cultures, which are highly subservient to the

clock. China is also considered a polychronic culture, although to a slightly lesser extent than the United States. In the Chinese context, punctuality is expected of lower-ranking members, but not necessarily of higher-ranking ones. As such, punctuality and waiting time is communicative of status and prestige.

4.7 Appearance and Artifacts

Physical appearance and artifacts are important facets of nonverbal communication.

They encompass the manipulative cues related to the body such as clothing and hairstyle, and the environment. These nonverbal cues are generally the most obvious due to their highly visible nature. Individuals can manipulate physical appearance and environmental artifacts to create certain impressions that communicate their status and personality. For example, one can change one’s clothing, hairstyle, and surroundings to create a desired impression or self-image.

In most business settings, physical appearance and artifacts tend to communicate a formal and professional image. However, cultures – both national and organizational – tend to differ on their emphasis on formality. The status -conscious Chinese are generally very mindful of physical appearance and artifacts in the communication of prestige and social ranking. Conversely, Americans tend to have a preference toward informality and equality. This typically leads to a more informal business setting and a more relaxed, and casual sense of business attire. However, when dealing with foreign counterparts, Americans may emphasize a greater degree of formality in physical appearance and artifacts.

Oftentimes people may not be consciously aware of how nonverbal cues influence their feelings and interpretations, yet when cross -cultural differences occur, misunderstandings and negative feelings may arise (Graham, 1996). Three primary factors shape how nonverbal messages are sent and received: (1) culture; (2) the relationship between interactants; and (3) the situation (Holtgraves, 1992). Although there is evidence of some universal facial expressions, culture remains a strong influence on nonverbal

communication. Cultural values of specific groups typically prescribe certain norms and values relating to space, touch, eye contact, and even dress. As a result, culture provides an overall template for nonverbal communication. Similarly, the type and stage of a relationship – whether close and intimate or distant and professional – dictates certain expected norms and behaviors among interactants. Finally, each communication situation presents its own parameters for nonverbal behaviors. These parameters include the physical environment, timing, temporary mental or emotional states , and the number of people present.

SECTION II:

KEY CONSTRUCTS INFLUENCING CROSS -CULTURAL NEGOTIATION & NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Kale and Barnes (1992) outline three broad antecedent constructs that have a major impact on cross-cultural negotiations. These distinct, yet highly inter-related constructs are