Nonverbal Communication in Dating Relationships - Research Paper Example

Running Head: NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION The Impact of Nonverbal Communication in Dating Relationships Tracy M. Guller of Texas at San Antonio The Impact of Nonverbal Communication in Dating Relationships Each person on this planet of six billion people, shares one thing. The need to establish and develop relationships is innate to the human species as much as the need for food. This basic need, found in every culture throughout history, aids people attempting to establish their will on others, express ideas, search for enlightenment, or seek love. Much of what defines the human experience has been, and continues to be our endeavors to attain and perfect relationships. Understanding the mysteries surrounding human relationships is the basis of modern research concerning the behavioral aspects of how relationships develop and thrive. Through studies of communications between individuals, for example, researchers have discovered a correlation in six specific motives for interpersonal communications, pleasure, affection, inclusion, escape, relaxation, and control, (Myers, 2001). Individuals will direct their interpersonal communications, both verbal and nonverbal, to satisfy one or more of these motives. During interpersonal communications it is most often what is not said that concerns individuals rather than what is said. A wife may wonder more about what is implied by the flat tone of her husband's voice than by what he has stated verbally. An employee may begin to distrust his boss if during private conversations the boss avoids eye contact with the employee (Le Poire, 2002). Researchers generally agree that all communications having both verbal and nonverbal elements comprise two levels of meaning and that both have a report and a command function. "The report aspect is the content and is concerned with what is verbalized. The command aspect is synonymous with the relational message and is concerned with what the entire message implies about the relationship: how communicators feel about their partner, about themselves in the relationship, and about the relationship in general." (Le Poire, 2002) The lack of understanding regarding nonverbal messages is partially due to any one nonverbal behavior having multiple meanings. Direct eye contact, for example, can mean to imply intimacy as well as anger. What determines the meaning of this behavior is the host of nonverbal cues displayed at the same time. No one nonverbal cue can be interpreted without considering the additional nonverbal behaviors. By example then the message implied by direct eye contact can only be determined by observing the proximity of the communicator, body orientation, other facial expressions, and the behavior of the communicator's hands and arms. If the communicator is standing close, smiling, and touching gently they are communicating intimacy. If they are grimacing while pointing a finger at the other's chest, they are communicating anger (Le Poire, 2002). Research regarding communication and nonverbal immediacy behaviors between marital partners has only recently started to receive serious attention (Hinkle, 1999). Some of the research indicates that an important nonverbal immediacy behavior required to sustain a relationship is the partners liking one another (Hinkle, 1999). "Liking performs an important function in relational maintenance. However, it is not clear exactly what behaviors married partners use to maintain their relationships" (Hinkle, 1999). Additional research suggests that partners engaging in nonverbally immediate behaviors view each other in a more positive way than those who do not engage in nonverbally immediate behaviors (Richmond, 2003). While much research has started to accumulate regarding nonverbal and verbal communications between married partners and the use of nonverbal immediacy behaviors to maintain these marital relationships, research regarding how these communication methods influences the early stages of a pre-marital relationship is only now beginning to emerge. To analyze the available data further regarding the impact of nonverbal communications in a dating relationship, the following research questions are proposed. RQ #1: How does nonverbal immediacy vary between partners in a dating relationship RQ #2: What constitutes nonverbal immediacy from each dating partner's individual perspective Nonverbal immediacy variables defined "Nonverbal Immediacy is a term used among communication researchers to describe nonverbal behaviors that communicate liking, a positive evaluation of others, or positive affect to others. These behaviors typically include looking toward someone, leaning toward someone, touching someone in a non-threatening manner, sitting near someone, smiling, and speaking in an animated way" (Nelson, 2002). Evaluating eight variables regarding nonverbal immediacy is important to answer these questions. Those variables include facial expressiveness, smiles, frowns, nods, encouragement, gestures while talking, touching, turning body toward partner, and proximity of body during communication. Relationships consider all eight of these variables during time spent together whether in public or private. Determining facial expressiveness, for example, by how much a partner uses facial expressions while talking, expresses thoughts, emotions, interaction, concerns and opinions on the topic shared. A partner takes into account how often the other person does all of these variables and to what degree to develop their own opinion of the partner's nonverbal immediacy (Smythe, 2005). The variables fall into two categories, animation and affiliation. Animation is energetic engagement of one partner while communicating with the other partner. Affiliation is positive emotion and desire for connection with a partner in a dating relationship (Smythe, 2005). Method Partners in dating relationships are normally attempting to create a positive view of them, whether consciously or unconsciously, in order that the relationship partner likes, or loves them so the time spent together is enjoyable. These positive views, or feelings, are subjective in nature. In attempts to gain knowledge of the nonverbal immediacy behaviors of dating partners to arrive at meaningful answers to the above research questions it is necessary to obtain objective information that may be analyzed. Participants Participants in this study will be randomly selected from students at San Antonio by brief interviews of couples appearing to be partners in a relationship. These interviews will be conducted at various locations on the university campus to determine if the selected couples are currently in a dating relationship, and are willing to complete two surveys each. Eligibility is based on the participants not being married and currently in a dating relationship. Both partners in the relationship must agree to participate. Ten couples are required for this study. Completion of the surveys may be done at the time of the initial contact interview or scheduled for a later time. Procedure Each participant will be asked to complete two survey forms, (see appendix one and two). Virginia P. Richmond, James C. McCroskey, and Aaron D. Johnson developed these surveys for their article Development of the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS): Measures of Self- and Other-Perceived Nonverbal Immediacy, published in Communication Quarterly, Vol. 51 No 4 Fall 2003 (Richmond, 2003). The surveys as developed allow each couple partner to describe their use of the variables associated with nonverbal immediacy using a numerical rating scale. Each couple partner will complete a survey for themselves and for their partner. This provides an impression each partner has concerning each of the nonverbal immediacy variables used by them and the partner. The survey titled Self, rates the person completing the survey and the survey titled Observer rates the other partner. Completed surveys will be tabulated according to the instructions for each appendix, first by couple for each of the two surveys, and then results will be tabulated in aggregate for each separate survey, self and observer. Measurement A package of four surveys for each dating couple will be accumulated, two self, and two observer. Each survey package will be coded with a letter beginning with the letter "A" and concluding on the tenth couple with letter "J". All scoring data will be entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet using a survey template and entering the scoring data for each corresponding question. The data will be categorized by the couple letter code. As noted in the appendices scoring instructions the survey questions are grouped into step one and step two categories. The survey questions in the spreadsheet model will be designated as to which scoring category they belong. After entering each couples data, the survey will be sorted into groups for each scoring category. Each set of survey data will then be totaled to arrive at a total score for each scoring category. Once all couples data has been entered the data will be compiled into a separate model, sorted, and totaled using the same method as above. In this way, scoring data will be available for each individual couple as well as in aggregate. A total score of forty or above in the step one-category questions indicate a positive view of nonverbal immediacy behaviors. The respondents are saying that they place a high value on these behaviors and that they or their partner displays these behaviors during communications with their partner more often than not. For example if couple "A" scores above forty on the self-surveys they are indicating they believe they display positive nonverbal behaviors in most communications with their partner. This indicates they value these behaviors. Conclusion In instances where relationships exhibit high levels of nonverbal immediacy, they are more motivated and have higher effective compatibility than in situation where the relationship shows low levels of immediacy (Andy, 2004). The couple is more likely to become motivated in conversations and have higher effective communication, when the couple exhibits positive affiliation and animation within the eight variables toward the relationship. The immediacy shown by the partners has almost no affect on the retention of relationship, positive affect for the relationship (Chesebro, 2003). Research indicates even the most positive nonverbal cues cannot influence the retention of the relationship by itself. It can motivate the partners to effectively communicate but not to retain the information that one another might be trying to relay. Nonverbal immediacy may not be able to affect all relationships in the world, but it can affect what the partners expect from one another. There is a positive relationship between heightened nonverbal immediacy and one partner's expectations of the other partner. Research finds that relationships are more willing to accept greater amounts of understanding when they perceive heightened relationship nonverbal immediacy (Pogue, 2006). It also finds that when there is an increase of a partner's immediacy, there is also an increase in the other partner's expectations of accessibility and understanding for situations and their unavailability-availability (Mottet, 2005). The ability for people in a relationship to reach each other on multiple levels is an issue continually addressed and questioned in the research field. Nonverbal immediacy plays a big role in how we communicate with one another and on what level in everyday life. The different levels of nonverbal immediacy can create voids or bridges that help us through communication within our romantic relationships. Nonverbal immediacy is around us all the time and is constantly being communicated. The communication between romantic partners, in particular, is important to the interaction process of us as human beings. References Andy, J. K.-B. (2004). The impact of past dating, relationship solidarity on commitment, satisfaction, and investment in current relationships. Communication Quarterly , 52, 3, 251-264. Chesebro, J. L. (2003). Effects of relationship clarity and nonverbal immediacy on learning, receiver apprehension, and affect. Communication Education , 52, 2, 135-182. Hinkle, L. (1999). Nonverbal immediacy communication behaviors and. Communication Reseach Reports , 16, 1, 81-90. Le Poire, B. D. (2002). Relational messages associated with nonverbal Involvement,. Communication Research Reports , 19, 3, 195-206. Levine, T. S. (2006). Love styles and communication in relationships: partner preferences, initiation, and intensification. Communication Quarterly , 54, 4, 465-486. Mottet, T. P.-R. (2005). The relationships between nonverbal immediacy and relationships with workload availability expectations. Communication Research Reports , 22, 2, 275-282. Myers, S. F. (2001). Interpersonal communication motives. Communication Research Reports, 18, 2, 182-191. Pogue, L. L. (2006). The effect of relationship nonverbal immediacy and credibility on motovation and affective learning. Communication Education , 55, 3, 331-344. Richmond, V. M. (2003). Development of the nonverbal immediacy scale (NIS): measures of self- and other-perceived nonverbal. Communication Quarterly , 51, 4, 504-517. Schrodt, P. W. (2006). Attributions of credibilit as a function of romantic relationship's expectations and use of nonverbal immediacy. Communication Education , 55, 1, 1-20. Smythe, M. H. (2005). Are romantic relationships or self-reports a valid method for measuring nonverbal immediacy Communication Education , 54, 2, 170-179. Witt, P. L. (2004, June). Analytical review of the relationship between immediacy and learning. Communication Monograph , 184-207. Appendix 1 Nonverbal Immediacy Scale-Self Report-NIS-S DIRECTIONS: The following statements describe the ways some people behave while talking with or to others. Please indicate in the space at the left of each item the degree to which you believe the statement applies TO YOU. Please use the following 5-point scale: I = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Occasionally; 4 = Often; 5 = Very Often 1. I use my hands and arms to gesture while talking to people. 2. I touch others on the shoulder or arm while talking to them. 3. I use a monotone or dull voice while talking to people. 4. I look over or away from others while talking to them. 5. I move away from others when they touch me while we are talking. 6. I have a relaxed body position when I talk to people. 7. I frown while talking to people. 8. I avoid eye contact while talking to people. 9. I have a tense body position while talking to people. 10. I sit close or stand close to people while talking with them. II. My voice is monotonous or dull when I talk to people. 12. I use a variety of vocal expressions when 1 talk to people. 13. I gesture when I talk to people. 14. I am animated when I talk to people. 15. I have a bland facial expression when I talk to people. 16. I move closer to people when I talk to them. 17. I look directly at people while talking to them. 18. I am stiff when I talk to people. 19. I have a lot of vocal variety when I talk to people. 20. I avoid gesturing while I am talking to people. 21. I lean toward people when I talk to them. 22. I maintain eye contact with people when I talk to them. 23. I try not to sit or stand close to people when I talk with them. 24. I lean away from people when I talk to them. 25. I smile when I talk to people. 26. I avoid touching people when I talk to them. Scoring for Nonverbal Immediacy Scale-Self Report-NIS-S Step 1Add the scores from the following items: 1, 2, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, and 25. (A questions) Step 2. Add the scores from the following items: 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 18, 20, 23, 24, and 26. (B questions) Total Score = Step 1 minus Step 2. Appendix 2 Nonverbal Immediacy Scale-Observer Report (NIS-O) DIRECTIONS: The following statements describe the ways some people behave while talking with or to others. Please indicate in the space at the left of each item the degree to which you believe the statement applies to ( ) (fill in the target person's name or description) Please use the following 5-point scale: 1 = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Occasionally; 4 = Often; 5 = Very Often 1. I use my hands and arms to gesture while talking to people. 2. I touch others on the shoulder or arm while talking to them. 3. I use a monotone or dull voice while talking to people. 4. I look over or away from others while talking to them. 5. I move away from others when they touch me while we are talking. 6. I have a relaxed body position when I talk to people. 7. I frown while talking to people. 8. I avoid eye contact while talking to people. 9. I have a tense body position while talking to people. 10. I sit close or stand close to people while talking with them. 11. My voice is monotonous or dull when I talk to people. 12. I use a variety of vocal expressions when I talk to people. 13. I gesture when I talk to people. 14. I am animated when I talk to people. 15. I have a bland facial expression when I talk to people. 16. I move closer to people when I talk to them. 17. I look directly at people while talking to them. 18. I am stiff when I talk to people. 19. I have a lot of vocal variety when I talk to people. 20. I avoid gesturing while I am talking to people. 21. I lean toward people when I talk to them. 22. I maintain eye contact with people when I talk to them. 23. I try not to sit or stand close to people when I talk with them. 24. I lean away from people when I talk to them. 25. I smile when I talk to people. 26. I avoid touching people when I talk to them. Scoring for Nonverbal Immediacy Scale-Observer Report (NIS-O) Step 1. Start with a score of 78. Add the scores from the following items: 1, 2, 6, 10,12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, and 25. Step 2. Add the scores from the following items: 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 18, 20, 23, 24, and 26. Total Score = Step 1 minus Step 2 Read More