Relational messages associated with nonverbal involvement,pleasantness, and expressiveness in romantic couples

Previous research suggests that individual nonverbal cues and cue complexes communicate multiple relational messages simultaneously. This work examines the contention that nonverbal percepts may predict relational message interpretations in romantic relationships. Results provide support for the hypothesis that nonverbal cues indicative of greater involvement, pleasantness, and expressiveness connote messages of intimacy. Specifically, the current study reveals that perceptions of intimacy and composure are associated with greater vocalic involvement. Interpretations are provided in line with the social meanings model.     

The Viability of Using Rapid Judgments as a Method of Deception Detection

Rapid Judgments (RJs) are quick assessments based on indirect verbal and nonverbal cues that are known to be associated with deception. RJs are advantageous because they eliminate the need for expensive detection equipment and only require minimal training for coders with relatively accurate judgments. Results of testing on two different datasets showed that trained coders were reliably making RJs after watching both long and short interaction segments but their judgments were not more accurate than the expert interviewers. The RJs did not discriminate between truth and deception as hypothesized. This raises more questions about the conditions under which making RJs from verbal and nonverbal cues achieves accurate detection of veracity.     

The effects of facial‐head cue combinations on interpersonal evaluations

Two experiments were conducted to examine the role of visual cues in interpersonal attraction and credibility. In the first study, 128 subjects viewed eight randomly ordered videotape segments of trained actors presenting a short speech accompanied by head nods, eyebrow raises, smiles, combinations of those cues, or no such cues. Ratings of the speakers on task and social attraction revealed that, as expected, the presence of any face or head cues produced more attraction than none; however, instead of the three combined cues producing the most attraction, the smiles‐head nod condition produced the greatest social attraction and the head nod only condition produced greatest task attraction; expected sex differences were largely supported. In the second study, face and head cues were performed by confederates during a live interview situation while subjects observed the interaction from behind a two‐way mirror. Results showed that smiles produced higher attraction and credibility ratings than did no smiles and nods, thus further substantiating the reward power of facial and head cues in social interaction.     

The voice of deceit: Refining and expanding vocal cues to deception

This study examined the nature of deceptive vocal behavior in interactive situations. Data from an earlier study were used to conduct a detailed analysis of vocal features of deceptive speech. Vocal samples were analyzed perceptually and acoustically. Of three categories examined (time, frequency, and intensity), the time variables best discriminated between truthful and deceptive speakers, with deceivers exhibiting shorter message length, longer response latencies, slower tempo, and less fluency than truthtellers. Deceivers also evidenced increased intensity range, increased pitch variance, and less pleasant vocal quality than truthtellers.     

A research note on the dimensions of communication reticence

The present investigation extends the debate regarding the underlying structure of a general communication reticence construct. The Personal Report of Communication Apprehension, the Unwillingness‐to‐Communicate Scale and the Writing Apprehension Test were factor‐analyzed. Separate factor analyses produced multidimensional solutions for each measure. A single factor analysis of all of the scale items produced a seven factor solution that offers a better understanding of the elements contributing to a communication reticence syndrome. The emerging factors indicated that communication reticence varies according to context of communication, mode of communication, personality type of the communicator, attitudes toward the communication process, and communication history.     

The role of nonverbal behaviors as distractors in resistance to persuasion in interpersonal contexts

The role of two nonverbal variables, conversational distance and physical self‐presentation, are examined as potential sources of distraction with consequent effects on susceptibility to persuasion. A model of conversational distancing violations is adapted to a distraction perspective to predict how nonverbal variables specifically might function as distractors. Results of an experiment manipulating violations of distancing expectations and physical attractiveness of confederates (N = 350) indicate that both may be sources of distraction, and offer modest support for the prediction that attractive individuals engaging in violations of expectations will serve as positive sources of distraction, leading to greater susceptibility to persuasion. Failure to support the prediction that unattractive individuals engaging in violations of expectations foster more resistance to persuasion is partly explained by the lack of a sufficiently unattractive confederate.     

The ideal source: A reexamination of source credibility measurement

This article investigates the assumption that extreme ratings on the semantic differential are preferable and that common agreement exists among users in the interpretation of items. These assumptions were investigated by measuring ideal ratings for three source types.     

Interpersonal deception: VI. Effects of preinteractional and interactional factors on deceiver and observer perceptions of deception success

Past research on deception success has focused on receiver judgments, ignoring deceiver perceptions, which may influence the ways deceivers choose to behave in interpersonal interactions. The present study investigated how several preinteractional and interactional factors affect both deceiver and observer perceptions of deception success. Preinteractional factors included three that have been found relevant to deceptive communication: social skill, self‐monitoring, and motivation. Interactional factors included receiver suspicion, plus four proposed by the four‐factor theory of deception (anxiety, affect, task difficulty, and behavioral control). Results indicated that deceivers’ perceptions of success were more affected by interactional factors (especially anxiety, interaction difficulty, and conversational normality). Conversely, observers were more affected by preinteractional factors such as deceiver social skill. However, motivation, self‐monitoring, and conversational normality affected both deceivers’ and observers’ assessments: greater motivation and self‐monitoring, coupled with more natural, expected communication, yielded greater believability in deceivers’ own eyes and the eyes of observers.