This article describes the basic mechanisms by which the nonverbal behavior of a communicator can influence recipients’ attitudes and persuasion. We review the literature on classic variables related to persuasive sources (e.g., physical attractiveness, credibility, and power), as well as research on mimicry and facial expressions of emotion, and beyond. Using the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) as a framework, we argue that the overt behavior of source variables can affect attitude change by different psychological processes depending on different circumstances. Specifically, we describe the primary and secondary cognitive processes by which nonverbal behaviors of the source (e.g., smiling, nodding, eye contact, and body orientation) affect attitude change. Furthermore, we illustrate how considering the processes outlined by the ELM can help to predict when and why attractive, credible, and powerful communicators can not only increase persuasion but also be detrimental for persuasion.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
In others words, the ELM highlights the fact that changing judgments can be accomplished either with a relatively high degree of thought or a relatively low degree of thought. Specifically, the “elaboration continuum” ranges from low to high. Importantly, the ELM holds that there are numerous specific processes of change that operate along this continuum. For example, automatic encoding/decoding (Ekman, 1999) requires relatively little thought and would operate at the low end of the continuum. In contrast, behavioral changes geared towards achieving stability that involve calibrating one’s requirements, expectancies and desires for a given interaction (Burgoon et al. 1995) tends to require higher degrees of thought and thus would operate along the upper end of the continuum. Because of these differences along the continuum, we speculate that in accord with the ELM, these processes could lead to similar attitudes, but with different long-term outcomes.
In the context of the ELM, “amount of thinking” is conceptualized as a continuum that reflects the degree to which an individual has the ability and the motivation to exert mental effort to carefully scrutinize the merits of information presented in a persuasive message. Thus, a variable can push people to be higher or lower on the continuum depending on whether they increase or decrease motivation or ability to think compared to their absence. The term “elaboration” is used to suggest that people add something of their own to the specific information presented in a persuasive message and are not simply rehearsing or learning the information presented in a verbatim manner (as in the classic learning theories of persuasion). As noted throughout the present review, in the ELM, variations in elaboration (e.g., high vs. low thinking) are consequential. For example, when people are relatively unmotivated or unable to think (i.e., low-thinking conditions), they are more likely to rely on the valence of immediately accessible information that originates either internally (one’s attitude) or externally (e.g., the attractiveness of the message source). In contrast, when people are more motivated and able to think (i.e., high-thinking conditions), then their initial reactions and the judgments that follow from their thoughts can be overridden by more complete interpretative analyses. Furthermore, judgments based on high levels of elaboration are more consequential than those based on low levels of elaboration.
Persuasive communications using attractive sources can have an especially powerful effect on people’s attitudes when they are not carefully thinking about the content of the message because objects perceived as attractive tend to make people feel good, and people are motivated to maintain positive moods (Wegener and Petty 1995). Moreover, attractive sources can also have a powerful effect on attitudes because people have a need to affiliate with attractive others and maintain a positive view of themselves.
When people are carefully processing a message (e.g., high in NC, high-involvement), in some cases they may perceive a nonverbal feature of the source (e.g., attractiveness) as exerting an inappropriate and/or unwanted influence on their thoughts (i.e., a biasing factor), and thus correct for its impact when reporting their attitudes. As previously explained, the underlying psychological processes by which source attractiveness influences attitudes under low-thinking can range from classical conditioning, to direct affect-transfer, to a misattribution of the response generated by the source.
Aguinis, H., & Henle, C. A. (2001). Effects of nonverbal behavior on perceptions of a female employee’s power bases. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 537–549.
Albert, S., & Dabbs, J. M. (1970). Physical distance and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15(3), 265–270.
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256–274.
Anderson, N. H. (1971). Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review, 78, 171–206.
Andrews, J. C., & Shimp, T. A. (1990). Effects of involvement, argument strength, and source characteristics on central and peripheral processing of advertising. Psychology & Marketing, 7(3), 195–214.
Argyle, M. (1988). Bodily communication (2nd ed.). Madison: International Universities Press.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70.
Axsom, D., Yates, S., & Chaiken, S. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 30–40.
Bailenson, J., & Yee, N. (2005). Digital chameleons: Automatic assimilation of nonverbal gestures in immersive virtual environments. Psychological Science, 16, 814–819.
Bayliss, A. P., Frischen, A., Fenske, M. J., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). Affective evaluations of objects are influenced by observed gaze direction and emotion expression. Cognition, 104, 644–653.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). New York: Academic Press.
Bernstein, M. J., Young, S. G., Brown, C. M., Sacco, D. F., & Claypool, H. M. (2016). Adaptive responses to social exclusion: Social rejection improves detection of real and fake smiles. Psychological Science, 19(10), 981–983.
Berry, D. S., & McArthur, L. Z. (1986). Perceiving character in faces: The impact of age-related craniofacial changes on social perception. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 3–18.
Boothby, E. J., Clark, M. S., & Bargh, J. A. (2014). Shared experiences are amplified. Psychological Science, 25(12), 2209–2216.
Briñol, P., & DeMarree, K. G. (Eds.). (2012). Social metacognition. New York: Psychology Press.
Briñol, P., DeMarree, K. G., & Smith, K. R. (2010). The role of embodied change in perceiving and processing facial expressions of others. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 437–438.
Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2008). Embodied persuasion: Fundamental processes by which bodily responses can impact attitudes. In G. R. Semin & E. R. Smith (Eds.), Embodiment grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches (pp. 184–207). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2009). Source factors in persuasion: A self-validation approach. European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 49–96.
Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2012). The history of attitudes and persuasion research. In A. Kruglanski & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of the history of social psychology (pp. 285–320). New York: Psychology Press.
Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2018). The impact of individual differences on attitudes and attitude change. In D. Albarracín & B. T. Johnson (Eds.), Handbook of attitudes (pp. 520–556). New York: Routledge.
Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., & Barden, J. (2007). Happiness versus sadness as determinants of thought confidence in persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 711–727.
Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., & Belding, J. (2017a). Objectification of people and thoughts: An attitude change perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology, 56, 233–249.
Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., & DeMarree, K. G. (2015). Being threatened and being a threat can increase reliance on thoughts: A self-validation approach. In P. J. Carroll, R. M. Arkin, & A. Wichman (Eds.), Handbook of personal security (pp. 37–54). New York: Psychology Press.
Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., Durso, R. O., & Rucker, D. D. (2017b). Power and persuasion: Processes by which perceived power can influence evaluative judgments. Review of General Psychology, 21, 223–241.
Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., & McCaslin, M. J. (2009). Changing attitudes on implicit versus explicit measures: What is the difference? In R. E. Petty, R. H. Fazio, & P. Briñol (Eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit measures (pp. 285–326). New York: Psychology Press.
Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., Santos, D., & Mello, J. (2018). Meaning moderates the persuasive effect of physical actions: Buying, selling, touching, carrying, and cleaning thoughts as if they were commercial products. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2, 460–471.
Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., & Tormala, Z. L. (2004). The self-validation of cognitive responses to advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 559–573.
Brownlow, S. (1992). Seeing is believing: Facial appearance, credibility, and attitude change. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16(2), 101–115.
Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test. Human Communication Research, 4, 129–142.
Burgoon, J. K., Birk, T., & Pfau, M. (1990). Nonverbal behaviors, persuasion, and credibility. Human Communication Research, 17(1), 140–169.
Burgoon, J. K., & Dillman, L. (1995). Gender, immediacy, and nonverbal communication. In P. J. Kalbfleisch & M. J. Cody (Eds.), Gender, power, and communication in human relationships (pp. 63–82). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Burgoon, J. K., Dillman, L., & Stern, L. A. (1993). Adaptation in dyadic interaction: Defining and operationalizing patterns of reciprocity and compensation. Communication Theory, 3(4), 295–316.
Burgoon, J. K., & Dunbar, N. E. (2006). Nonverbal expressions of dominance and power in human relationships. In Valerie Manusov & Miles L. Patterson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 279–298). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.
Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A., & Dillman, L. (1995). Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic interaction patterns. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131.
Cappella, J. N., & Greene, J. O. (1982). A discrepancy-arousal explanation of mutual influence in expressive behavior for adult and infant-adult interaction. Communication Monographs, 49, 89–114.
Cashdan, E. (1998). Smiles, speech, and body posture: How women and men display sociometric status and power. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22(4), 209–228.
Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3–39). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460–473.
Chaikin, A. (1978). Students’ reactions to teachers’ physical attractiveness and nonverbal behavior: Two exploratory studies. Psychology in the Schools, 15(4), 588–595.
Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 893–910.
Chartrand, T. L., & Lakin, J. L. (2013). The antecedents and consequences of human behavioral mimicry. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 285–308.
Cialdini, R. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Civile, C., & Obhl, S. S. (2017). Students wearing police uniforms exhibit biased attention toward individuals wearing hoodies. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 62.
Clark, J. K., Wegener, D. T., Habashi, M. M., & Evans, A. T. (2012). Source expertise and persuasion: The effects of perceived opposition or support on message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(1), 90–100.
Crivelli, C., & Fridlund, A. J. (2018). Facial displays are tools for social influence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 388–399.
DeBono, K. G., & Harnish, R. J. (1988). Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(4), 541–546.
Dipboye, R. L., Arvey, R. D., & Terpstra, D. E. (1977). Sex and physical attractiveness of raters and applicants as determinants of resume evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 288–294.
Ekman, P. (1999). Basic emotions. In T. D. T. Power (Ed.), The handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 45–60). Sussex: Wiley.
Evans, A. T. (2014). The impact of observed nonverbal cues on message-based persuasion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.
Evans, A. T., & Clark, J. K. (2012). Source characteristics and persuasion: The role of self-monitoring in self-validation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 383–386.
Fabbri-Destro, M., & Rizzolatti, G. (2008). Mirror neurons and mirror systems in monkeys and humans. Physiology, 23(3), 171–179.
Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1013–1027.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Festinger, L., & Thibaut, J. (1951). Interpersonal communication in small groups. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46(1), 92–99.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Fleming, M. A., & Petty, R. E. (2000). Identity and persuasion: An elaboration likelihood approach. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 171–199). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Forehand, M. R., & Perkins, A. (2005). Implicit assimilation and explicit contrast: A set/reset model of response to celebrity voice-overs. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 435–441.
Galinsky, A. D., Rucker, D. D., & Magee, J. C. (2015). Power: Past findings, present considerations, and future directions. APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 421–460.
Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(12), 493–501.
Greenwald, A. G., & Albert, R. D. (1968). Acceptance and recall of improvised arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 31–34.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.
Gruder, C. L., Cook, T. D., Hennigan, K. M., Flay, B. R., Alessis, C., & Halamaj, J. (1978). Empirical tests of the absolute sleeper effect predicted from the discounting cue hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1061–1074.
Guido, G., Peluso, A. M., & Moffa, V. (2014). Beardedness in advertising: Effects on endorsers’ credibility and purchase intentions. Journal of Marketing Communications, 17(1), 37–49.
Hale, J. L., & Burgoon, J. K. (1984). Models of reactions to changes in nonverbal immediacy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8(4), 287–314.
Hall, E. T. (1966). Hidden dimension. Garden City: Doubleday.
Haugtvedt, C., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1992). Need for cognition and advertising: Understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(3), 239–260.
Haugtvedt, C., Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Steidley, T. (1988). Personality and ad effectiveness: Exploring the utility of need for cognition. Advances in Consumer Research, 15, 209–212.
Heflick, N. A., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2014). Seeing eye to body: The literal objectification of women. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 225–229.
Horcajo, J., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2014). Multiple roles for majority versus minority source status on persuasion when source status follows the message. Social Influence, 9, 37–51.
Hosman, L. A., Huebner, T. M., & Siltanen, S. A. (2002). The impact of power-of-speech style, argument strength, and need for cognition on impression formation, cognitive responses, and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21(4), 361–381.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Jones, C. R., Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2009). Implicit misattribution as a mechanism underlying evaluative conditioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 933–948.
Kang, Y. S., & Herr, P. M. (2006). Beauty and the beholder: Toward an integrative model of communication source effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 123–130.
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60.
Krumhuber, E. G., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2009). Can Duchenne smiles be feigned? New evidence on felt and false smiles. Emotion, 9(6), 807–820.
Kunecke, J., Wilhelm, O., & Sommer, W. (2017). Emotion recognition in nonverbal face-to-face communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 41(3), 221–238.
Langton, S. R. H. (2000). The mutual influence of gaze and head orientation in the analysis of social attention direction. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 825–845.
Langton, S. R. H., Watt, R. J., & Bruce, V. (2000). Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 50–59.
Leder, H., Forster, M., & Gerger, G. (2011). The glasses stereotype revisited: Effects of eyeglasses on perception, recognition, and impression of faces. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 70(4), 211–222.
Locke, C. C., & Anderson, C. (2015). The downside of looking like a leader: Power, nonverbal confidence, and participative decision-making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 42–47.
Mann, T. C., & Ferguson, M. J. (2016). Reversing implicit first impressions through reinterpretation after a two-day delay. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 122–127.
McConnell, A. R., Rydell, R. J., Strain, L. M., & Mackie, D. M. (2008). Forming implicit and explicit attitudes toward individuals: Social group association cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(5), 792–807.
McGuire, W. J. (1981). The probabilogical model of cognitive structure and attitude change. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Mello, J., Garcia-Marques, T., Briñol, P., Cancela, A., & Petty, R. E. (2017). The effect of self-objectification and perceived physical attractiveness on thought-reliance. In Presented at the 18th General Meeting of the European Association of Social Psychology. Granada, Spain.
Murphy, S. T., & Zajonc, R. B. (1993). Affect, cognition and awareness: Affective priming with optimal and suboptimal exposures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 723–739.
Niedenthal, P. M., Mermillod, M., Maringer, M., & Hess, U. (2010). The Simulation of Smiles (SIMS) model: Embodied simulation and the meaning of facial expression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 417–480.
Okubo, M., Ishikawa, K., Kobayashi, A., & Suzuki, H. (2017). Can I trust you? Laterality of facial trustworthiness in an economic game. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 41, 21–34.
Ottati, V., Terkildsen, N., & Hubbard, C. (1997). Happy faces elicit heuristic processing in a televised impression formation task: A cognitive tuning account. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1144–1156.
Pallak, S. R. (1983). Salience of a communicator’s physical attractiveness and persuasion: A heuristic versus systematic processing interpretation. Social Cognition, 2(2), 158–170.
Paredes, B., Stavraki, M., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2013). Smiling after thinking increases reliance on thoughts. Social Psychology, 44, 349–353.
Parkinson, B., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2015). Current emotion research in social psychology: Thinking about emotions and other people. Emotion Review, 7(4), 371–380.
Patterson, M. L. (1976). An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy. Psychological Review, 83(3), 235–245.
Patterson, M. L. (1982). A sequential functional model of nonverbal behavior. Psychological Review, 89(3), 231–249.
Patterson, M. L. (1995). A parallel process model of nonverbal communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19(1), 3–29.
Patterson, M. L. (2018). A systems model of dyadic nonverbal interaction. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-018-00292-w.
Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2010). Attitude structure and change: Implications for implicit measures. In B. Gawronski & B. K. Payne (Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 335–352). New York: Guilford Press.
Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2012). The elaboration likelihood model. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 224–245). London: Sage.
Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., Tormala, Z. L., & Wegener, D. T. (2007). The role of meta-cognition in social judgment. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: A handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 254–284). New York: Guilford Press.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915–1926.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Issue involvement as a moderator of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context. Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 20–24.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on response to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69–81.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981a). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument–based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847–855.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Heesacker, M. (1981b). The use of rhetorical questions in persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 432–440.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135–146.
Petty, R. E., Harkins, S. G., & Williams, K. D. (1980). The effects of group diffusion of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 81–92.
Petty, R. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (Eds.). (1995). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah: Erlbaum Associates.
Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (1981c). Historical foundations of the cognitive response approach to attitudes and persuasion. In R. Petty, T. Ostrom, & T. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 5–29). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Petty, R. E., Schumann, D. W., Richman, S. A., & Strathman, A. J. (1993). Positive mood and persuasion: Different roles for affect under high and low elaboration conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 5–20.
Puckett, J. M., Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Fisher, D. L. (1983). The relative impact of age and attractiveness stereotypes on persuasion. Journal of Gerontology, 38, 340–343.
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382.
Rizzolatti, G. (2005). The mirror neuron system and its function in humans. Anatomy and Embryology, 210(5), 419–421.
Rubenstein, A. J., Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (2002). What makes a face attractive and why: The role of averageness in defining facial beauty. In G. Rhodes & L. A. Zebrowitz (Eds.), Advances in visual cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–33), Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives. Westport: Ablex Publishing.
Rucker, D. D., Tormala, Z. L., Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2014). Consumer conviction and commitment: An appraisal-based framework for attitude certainty. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(1), 119–136.
Rychlowska, M., Jack, R. E., Garrod, O. G. B., Schyns, P. G., Martin, J. D., & Niedenthal, P. M. (2017). Functional smiles: Tools for love, sympathy, and war. Psychological Science, 28(9), 1259–1270.
Rydell, R. J., & McConnell, A. R. (2006). Understanding implicit and explicit attitude change: A systems of reasoning analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 995–1008.
Schubert, T. W., Waldzus, S., & Seibt, B. (2008). The embodiment of power and communalism in space and bodily contact. In G. R. Semin & E. R. Smith (Eds.), Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches (pp. 160–183). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513–523.
Shavitt, S., Swan, S., Lowrey, T. M., & Wanke, M. (1994). The interaction of endorser attractiveness and involvement in persuasion depends on the goal that guides message processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3(2), 137–162.
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. Oxford: Harper.
Shteynberg, G. (2015). Shared attention. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 579–590.
Shteynberg, G., Bramlett, J. M., Fles, E. H., & Cameron, J. (2016). The broadcast of shared attention and its impact on political persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 665–673.
Smith, C. T., DeHouwer, J. D., & Nosek, B. A. (2012). Consider the source: Persuasion of implicit evaluations is moderated by source credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 193–205.
Snyder, M. (1979). Self-monitoring processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 85–128). New York: Academic Press.
Staats, A. W., & Staats, C. K. (1958). Attitudes established by classical conditioning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 57, 37–40.
Tanner, R., & Chartrand, T. (2006). The convincing Chameleon: The impact of mimicry on persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 33, 409–412.
Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 558–568.
Tormala, Z. L., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2006). When credibility attacks: The reverse impact of source credibility on persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 684–691.
Tormala, Z. L., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2007). Multiple roles for source credibility under high elaboration: It’s all in the timing. Social Cognition, 25, 536–552.
Toscano, H., Schubert, T. W., Dotsch, R., Falvello, V., & Todorov, A. (2016). Physical strength as a cue to dominance: A data-driven approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(12), 1603–1616.
Van Kleef, G. A., van den Berg, H., & Heerdink, M. W. (2015). The persuasive power of emotions: Effects of emotional expressions on attitude formation and change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1124–1142.
Vogel, T., Kutzner, F., Fiedler, K., & Freytag, P. (2010). Exploiting attractiveness in persuasion: Senders’ implicit theories about receivers’ processing motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(6), 830–842.
Watkins, L. M., & Johnston, L. (2000). Screening job applicants: The impact of physical attractiveness and application quality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(2), 76–84.
Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Flexible correction processes in social judgement: The role of naive theories in corrections for perceived bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 36–51.
Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., & Ducheneaut, N. (2009). The proteus effect: Implications of transformed digital self-representation on online and offline behavior. Communication Research, 36(2), 285–312.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.
Zebrowitz, L. A., & Montepare, J. M. (2008). Social psychological face perception: Why appearance matters. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(3), 1497–1517.
Ziegler, R., von Schwichow, A., & Diehl, M. (2005). Matching the message source to attitude functions: Implications for biased processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 645–653.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Guyer, J.J., Briñol, P., Petty, R.E. et al. Nonverbal Behavior of Persuasive Sources: A Multiple Process Analysis. J Nonverbal Behav 43, 203–231 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-018-00291-x
- Nonverbal behavior