Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 211–236 | Cite as

Effect of Dyadic Context on Judgments of Rapport: Dyad Task and Partner Presence

  • Nancy M. Puccinelli
  • Linda Tickle-Degnen
  • Robert Rosenthal

Abstract

The present studies investigated the effects of dyadic context on judgments of nonverbal behavior associated with rapport. As predicted, the task performed by a dyad, the visible presence or absence of both dyad members, and the sex of the observer affected observer judgments of responsiveness, friendliness, dominance, critical scrutiny, polite sympathy, and high status. The results suggest that dyadic context affects judgments of dyad members' facilitation of rapport by both constraining dyad behavior and affecting observer perception: (a) Dyad members received higher judgments on person-focused behaviors when engaged in a discussion as compared to a puzzle; (b) Visible presence of an interaction partner led observers to see a dyad member, on the whole, as inhibiting rapport in the interaction; and (c) Female observers perceived dyad members to exhibit more rapport-facilitating behavior. These results have major implications for the way rapport and person perception research is conducted and for understanding interpersonal perception in everyday life.

context effects interpersonal sensitivity methodology person perception rapport 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ambady, N.,&Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 256–274.Google Scholar
  2. Bensing, J. M., Kerssens, J. J.,&Pasch, M. v. d. (1995). Patient-directed gaze as a tool for discovering and handling psychosocial problems in general practice. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19(4), 223–242.Google Scholar
  3. Bernieri, F. J. (2001). Toward a taxonomy of interpersonal sensitivity. In J. A. Hall&F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Bernieri, F. J.,&Gillis, J. S. (2001). Judging rapport: Employing Brunswik's lens model to study interpersonal sensitivity. In J. A. Hall&F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement(pp. 67–88). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Bernieri, F. J., Gillis, J. S., Davis, J. M.,&Grahe, J. E. (1996). Dyad rapport and the accuracy of its judgment across situations: A lens model analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 110–129.Google Scholar
  6. Chapman, D. S.,&Webster, J. (2001). Rater correction processes in applicant selection using videoconference technology: The role of attributions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(12), 2518–2537.Google Scholar
  7. DiMatteo, M. R. (1993). Expectations in the physician-patient relationship: Implications for patient adherence to medical treatment recommendations. In P. D. Blanck (Ed.), Interpersonal expectations:Theory, research, and applications (pp. 296–315). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fiske, S. T., Kenny, D. A.,&Taylor, S. E. (1982). Structural models for the mediation of salience effects on attribution. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 18(2), 105–127.Google Scholar
  9. Grahe, J. E.,&Bernieri, F. J. (1999). The importance of nonverbal cues in judging rapport. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23(4), 253–269.Google Scholar
  10. Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences, communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hall, J. A.,&Halberstadt, A. G. (1996). Subordination and nonverbal sensitivity: A hypothesis in search of support. In M. R. Walsh (Ed.), Women, men, and gender: Ongoing debates(pp. 120–133). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kenrick, D. T., McCreath, H. E., Govern, J., King, R.,&Bordin, J. (1990). Person-environment intersections: Everyday settings and common trait dimensions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4), 685–698.Google Scholar
  13. Knapp, M. L.,&Hall, J. A. (2002). Nonverbal communication in human interaction (5th ed.). London: Thomas Learning, Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Lott, D. E.,&Sommer, R. (1967). Seating arrangements and status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(1), 90–95.Google Scholar
  15. Puccinelli, N. M.,&Tickle-Degnen, L. (2003). Knowing too much about others: Moderators of the relationship between rapport and eavesdropping in social interaction. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  16. Puccinelli, N. M., Tickle-Degnen, L.,&Rosenthal, R. (2003a). Effect of target context on judge sensitivity to felt rapport. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  17. Puccinelli, N. M., Tickle-Degnen, L.,&Rosenthal, R. (2003b). Stage left, stage right? Position effects on perception of a spokesperson. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  18. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Rosenthal, R.,&DePaulo, B. M. (1979). Sex differences in eavesdropping on nonverbal cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(2), 273–285.Google Scholar
  20. Rosenthal, R., Hall, J. A., DiMatteo, M. R., Rogers, P. L.,&Archer, D. (1979). Sensitivity to nonverbal communication: The PONS test. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Rosenthal, R.,&Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  22. Rosnow, R.,&Rosenthal, R. (1997). People studying people: Artifacts and ethics in behavioral research. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  23. Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L. J.,&Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation in the big-five personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1380–1393.Google Scholar
  24. Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L.,&Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10(1), 80–83.Google Scholar
  25. Taylor, S. E.,&Fiske, S. T. (1975). Point of view and perceptions of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(3), 439–445.Google Scholar
  26. Taylor, S. E.,&Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 249–288). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Tickle-Degnen, L. (1998). Working well with others: The prediction of students' clinical performance. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52(2), 133–142.Google Scholar
  28. Tickle-Degnen, L.,&Gavett, E. (in press). Changes in nonverbal behavior during the development of therapeutic relationships. In R. S. Feldman (Ed.), Nonverbal behavior in clinical settings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Tickle-Degnen, L.,&Puccinelli, N. M. (1999). The nonverbal expression of negative emotions: Peer and supervisor responses to occupational therapy students' emotional attributes. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 19(1), 18–29.Google Scholar
  30. Tickle-Degnen, L.,&Rosenthal, R. (1990a). The behavioral and cognitive response of braindamaged patients to therapist instructional style. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 10, 345–359.Google Scholar
  31. Tickle-Degnen, L.,&Rosenthal, R. (1990b). The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates. Psychological Inquiry, 1(4), 285–293.Google Scholar
  32. Zebrowitz, L. A. (1990). Toward an integrative theory of social perception. Pacific Grove, CA: Taylor & Francis, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nancy M. Puccinelli
    • 1
  • Linda Tickle-Degnen
    • 2
  • Robert Rosenthal
    • 3
  1. 1.Nancy M. Upton (Puccinelli), Department of MarketingSuffolk UniversityBoston
  2. 2.Department of Rehabilitation SciencesBoston UniversityUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CaliforniaRiverside

Personalised recommendations