Advertisement

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 253–269 | Cite as

The Importance of Nonverbal Cues in Judging Rapport

  • Jon E. Grahe
  • Frank J. Bernieri
Article

Abstract

This study examined the relative impact different channels of communication had on social perception based on exposure to thin slices of the behavioral stream. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that dyadic rapport can be perceived quickly through visual channels. Perceivers judged the rapport in 50 target interactions in one of five stimulus display conditions: transcript, audio, video, video+ transcript, or video+audio. The data demonstrated that perceivers with access to nonverbal, visual information were the most accurate perceivers of dyadic rapport. Their judgments were found to covary with the visually encoded features that past research has linked with rapport expression. This suggests the presence of a nonverbally based implicit theory of rapport that more or less matches the natural ecology, at least as it occurs within brief samples of the behavioral stream.

Keywords

Social Psychology Visual Information Past Research Relative Impact Thin Slice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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, 256–274.Google Scholar
  2. Archer, D., & Akert, R. M. (1977). Words and everything else: Verbal and nonverbal cues in social interpretation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 443–449.Google Scholar
  3. Argyle, M., Salter, V., Nicholson, H., Williams, M., & Burgess, P. (1970). The communication of inferior and superior attitudes by verbal and nonverbal signals. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 222–231.Google Scholar
  4. Babad, E., Bernieri, F., & Rosenthal, R. (1989). Nonverbal communication and leakage in the behavior of biased and unbiased teachers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 89–94.Google Scholar
  5. Babad, E., Bernieri, F., & Rosenthal, R. (1991). Students as judges of teachers' verbal and nonverbal behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 211–234.Google Scholar
  6. Bernieri, F. J., Davis, J. M., Rosenthal, R., & Knee, C. R. (1994). Interactional synchrony and rapport: Measuring synchrony in displays devoid of sound and facial affect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 303–311.Google Scholar
  7. Bernieri, F. J., & Gillis, J. S. (1995). The judgment of rapport: A cross-cultural comparison between Americans and Greeks. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19, 115–130.Google Scholar
  8. 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, 110–129.Google Scholar
  9. Bernieri, F. J., & Grahe, J. E. (1999). Thin-slice samples of the behavioral stream: Validating their use in social psychological research. Manuscript in Preparation. University of Toledo.Google Scholar
  10. Berry, D. S., Pennebaker, J. W., Mueller, J. S., & Hiller, W. S. (1997). Linguistic bases of social perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 526–537.Google Scholar
  11. Depaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 203–243.Google Scholar
  12. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social Cognition (2nd Ed). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652–670.Google Scholar
  14. Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1988). Friends and Strangers: Acquaintanceship, agreement, and the accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 149–158.Google Scholar
  15. Gifford, R. (1994). A lens-mapping framework for understanding the encoding and decoding of interpersonal dispositions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 398–412.Google Scholar
  16. Gifford, R., & Hine, D. W. (1994) The role of verbal behavior in the encoding and decoding of interpersonal dispositions. Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 115–132.Google Scholar
  17. Gillis, J. S., Bernieri, F. J., & Wooten, E. (1995). The effects of stimulus medium and feedback on the judgment of rapport. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 33–45.Google Scholar
  18. Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 845–857.Google Scholar
  19. Kruglanski, A.W. (1989). The psychology of being "right": On the problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 395–409.Google Scholar
  20. Levesque, M. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1993). Accuracy of behavioral predictions at zero acquaintance: A social relations analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1178–1187.Google Scholar
  21. Mehrabian, A., & Ferris, S. (1967). Inference of attitudes from nonverbal communication in two channels. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31, 248–252.Google Scholar
  22. Mehrabian, A., & Weiner, M. (1967). Decoding of inconsistent communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 109–114.Google Scholar
  23. Noller, P. (1985). Video primacy—A further look. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 9, 28–47.Google Scholar
  24. Rosenthal, R., & DePaulo, B. M. (1979). Sex differences in accommodation in nonverbal communication. In R. Rosenthal (Ed.), Skill in nonverbal communication. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschager, Gunn, & Hain.Google Scholar
  25. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1985). Contrast analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis of variance. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis, 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  27. Tickle-Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1987). Group rapport and nonverbal behavior. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 113–136.Google Scholar
  28. Tickle-Degnen, L, & Rosenthal, R. (1990). The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 285–293.Google Scholar
  29. Zebrowitz, L. A. (1990). Social Perception. Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jon E. Grahe
    • 1
  • Frank J. Bernieri
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMonmouth CollegeUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ToledoUSA

Personalised recommendations