Proposal for a Nonverbal Sensitivity Model of Perceived ·Immediacy

(1)

Mem. Fae. Educ., Kagawa Univ. II, 54(2004), 15-35

Proposal for a Nonverbal Sensitivity Model of Perceived ·Immediacy

Kiyofumi ^{lcHIKA WA}^l

(Key words : nonverbal model, nonverbal adjustment, immediacy)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to propose a nonverbal model to reconcile inconsistent results in relation to revising Patterson's (1976) arousal model. Fifty-two female undergraduate students participated as subjects to interact with paired same sex confederates in two conversational sessions.

Extremely nearer interpersonal distance in Session 2 compared to Session 1 between pairs was induced as increased immediacy manipulation. Actual viewpoints were as follows : to confirm whether the arousal change would be a necessary condition for the model ; to examine labeling effects after the immediacy increase condition ; to ensure which prevail in nonverbal adjustment of reciprocal or compensation. We proposed a model in order to explain nonverbal adjustments to the conditions mixed with immediacy change and positive or negative labeling. Consequently, we proposed a model named the Nonverbal Sensitivity Model of Perceived Immediacy.

In our daily life, nonverbal behavior, for example, proximity, gestures, facial expres- sions in emotion, gazing behavior, eye contact, nodding, smiling, body leaning and so forth, convey connotations in our communication and play an significant role in the interaction. Since Argyle and Dean (1965), several theories or models as to nonverbal behavior have been proposed or examined (Patterson, 1976 ; Anderson and Anderson, 1984 Firestone, 1977 ; Kaplan et al. , 1983 ; Patterson, 1982 ; Hale and Burgoon, 1984 ; Cappella and Green, 1984).

Argyle and Dean

(1965)

postulated the 'affiliative conflict' theory, this also known as

1 I wish to express my gratitude to Associate Professor K. Nakamura, Kagawa University, for his coding systems on the personal computer, and also Y. Sato, Y. Nakata and K. Sugiyama for their help in carrying out the experiment and analyzing the data. This study was presented at the XVII Interna- tional Congress of Psychology (held at Stockholm in 2000).

(2)

Kiyofumi lcHIKA w A

the Intimacy-Equilibrium Theory or the Equilibrium Model of Intimacy. Argyle and Dean

(1965)

hypothesized that approach and avoidance forces produce an equilibrium level of intimacy in interpersonal interactions. , Taking eye. contact as an example, the approach forces may include the desire for visual feedback or satisfaction of affiliative needs. The avoidance forces may include the fear of revealing oneself or seeing rejection by others. Argyle and Dean

(1965)

postulated that .intimacy is a function of eye contact, physical proximity, intimacy of topic, and amount of smiling etc. Once a comfortable level of intimacy has been established, and if one of the components of intimacy was changed, one or more components of intimacy would be changed requiring compensatory adjustment in order to maintain the equilibrium. In their experiment, Argyle and Dean

(1965)

dealt with the relationship between interpersonal distance and eye contact. Coutt, and Ledden

(1977)

manipulated a face to face seating distance to examine change· of gaze, smile, body orientation, and leaning forward. Their results exhibited compensatory reactions in favor of the intimacy equilibrium theory in both while moving closer and also moving further away. Patterson (

1973)

pointed out that compensatory adjustments were observed especially between eye contact and interpersonal distance.

Much research has come out in favor of these compensatory results (Wada,

1987).

Aiello

(1972)

reported compensation for male subjects' amount of looking and average length of glance, however curvilinear relationship with distance for females. Furthermore, reciprocity of nonverbal behavior, instead of the compensatory or not compensatory results

(:Jourard and Freedman,

1970 ;

Breed,

1972 ;

Shultz and Barefoot,

1974 ;

Edinger and Patterson,

1983 ;

Patterson,

1973)

or inconsistent results (Russo,

1975)

were reported.·

The arousal model of interpersonal intimacy by Patterson

(1976)

is one of models to reconcile these inconsistent results in relation to the equilibrium model of intimacy. The basic proposition of the model was that in a dyadic interaction, sufficient changes in the intimacy behavior of one person would produce emotionally labeled arousal changes in the other person, depending on the nature of the relationship or perceived situation. Patterson

(1976)

assumed that when a person's change of intimacy behavior was relatively small increase or decrease, this would lead to compensation. Iizuka et al.,

(1989)

re-examined the study of Coutt, et al.,

(1980)

that examined the arousal model by Patterson

(1976).

Concerning the concept of intimacy, Wada

(1987)

questioned the belief in using the word 'intimacy' because of ambiguity. For example, we say that increased intimacy (e.g., increased eye contact) conveys to others more than just intimacy made by eye contact. This means that "intimacy" is used in order to describe the behavior and also the function of the intimacy (i.e. , behavior).

Mehrabian

(1969)

defined 'immediacy' as the extent to which communication behavior enhances closeness to and nonverbal intervention with another. Richmond, et al.,

(1987)

(3)

Proposal for a Nonverbal Sensitivity Model of Perceived Immediacy

defined immediacy as the degree of perceived· physical or psychological closeness between people and showed the immediacy continuum from "physical violence to intimacy". In this study, we use the word 'immediacy' instead of intimacy in line with Coutt et al., (1980).

To measure arousal, Patterson et al. , (1981) used skin conductance level (SCL) and skin conductance response (SCR) as physiological arousal of electrodermal response. Nichols and Champness (1971) reported the relationship between eye contact and GSR. Iizuka et al.,

(1989) used the measures of a rating scale and observed subjects' hand movement and foot movements deferring to Freedman and Hoffman (1967). Instead of these physiological measures, Burgoon, et al. , (1992) expressed an arousal measure by means of a rating scale composed of 4 bipolar adjectives, i.e. , still-restless ; cool - bothered ; calm - anxious ; composed - uncomposed. Ichikawa (1997, 2000a, 2000b) used this similar rating scale.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of immediacy manipulation in terms of

"interpersonal distance change" on nonverbal behavior. Wada (1990) insisted that the intimacy-equilibrium theory would be applicable better when the extreme experimental manipulation was carried out and the subjects were unknown to each other. Accordingly, extreme experimental manipulation for immediacy, that is, greater changing of interpersonal distance, was applied in this study.

As for the manipulation of 'labeling', in addition to the experimental manipulation in Ichikawa (2000b) that used a similarity-attraction hypothesis (Byrne, 1971), a rating scale of "impression of the partner" was added to the 'labeling' manipulation.

The aims of this study were as follows :

( 1) to confirm whether arousal change would be a necessary condition for the arousal model.

(2) to examine whether there are differences for labeling effects on nonverbal adjustment after increased immediacy, that is, with much nearer interpersonal distance.

(3) to ascertain which would prevail in nonverbal adjustment, reciprocal or complementary.

(4) to refine Patterson's (1976) arousal model and try to propose a new model in order to explain nonverbal adjustments.

Method

Subjects and experimental design :

Fifty-two female undergraduate students in Kagawa University participated as subjects.

Twelve female confederates, who also were students at the same university, took the role of partners with subjects in the conversation. The subjects and the confederates were assigned to pairs at random. The pairs assigned were unknown to each other.

(4)

Kiyofumi lcHIKA w A

Experimental situation : Manipulation of immediacy :

Experiments were composed of two sessions. After introducing each other, Session 1 was the first interaction for the dyad (subject and confederate) . In Session 1, the subject and the confederate sat 106. 0 cm apart from each other at a 90-degree right angle to the table.

This. distance was decided upon after preliminary experiments and was thought of creating a relaxed feeling and promoting a comfortable conversational situation.

The subjects were separated in the experimental (i.e. , immediacy increase) or the control (i.e. , no immediacy change) conditions. In the immediacy increase condition, the subject and the confederate sat at a distance of 27. 5 cm at a 90-degree right angle to each other. According to our preliminary experiments, this interpersonal distance between the subject and the confederate was so close that the legs of the chairs were almost touching.

This interpersonal distance prevented the dyad getting any closer. This twenty-seven centime- ters falls into the category of "intimate zone : close phase" by Hall ( 1966) . On the other hand, under the control condition, the seating position (distance between dyad being 106. 0 cm) was not changed throughout Session 1 and Session 2 (see Figure 1) .

19.45cm (a): Session 1 (b ): Session 2

Figure 1. Seating Position in Immediacy Increased Condition

Training of confederates as for immediacy controlling :

Immediacy manipulation was accomplished only by changing 'interpersonal distance' . We trained each confederate to behave naturally and showing constant nonverbal behavior as much as possible except for 'interpersonal distance', for example, gazing, smiling, and nodding while interacting with the subject. This indicated that immediacy control among confederates throughout the experiments was successful.

Material used in conversation between dyads (TAT cards)

Our preliminary experiments to ascertain easiness in making stories and how think of many stories, images and preferences for TAT cards (Togawa, 1976), were carried out to

(5)

Propos~l for a Nonverbal Sensitivity Model of Perceived Immediacy

select TAT cards for use in the conversations. Consequently, we selected two TAT cards, that is, numbers 4 · and 7. The counterbalance of using two TAT cards among experimental conditions (immediacy increase or control), and labeling condition (positive or negative) was accomplished.

Procedure

Manipulation of immediacy :

The manipulation of immediacy was concerned only with interpersonal distance between pairs. The pairs were seated at a comfortable distance (106 cm) at a 90-degree right angle to the table in Session 1. In accordance with our preliminary experiments, the distance between pairs was changed to a very close distance (27. 5 cm) in Session 2, as shown in Figure 1.

The increased immediacy condition (i.e. , changing interpersonal distance in the session 2) was extremely· nearer (i.e. , degree of immediacy change being great) compared with the experimental situation in Ichikawa (2000b).

Manipulation of Labeling :

The subject's emotional feelings (i.e. , labeling) toward the confederate were manipulated using the 'similarity hypothesis' by Byrne ( 1971) . The questionnaire in order to manipulate labeling was composed of 10 items with a 6 point rating scale which was quoted 8 items from Aoki (1970) and 2 items from Fujimori (1980). For the positive labeling condition, the confederate's sense of value and attitude were manipulated to be similar to the subject's responses. On the other hand, the partner's, i.e., confederate's sense of value and attitude were manipulated to be opposites in the negative labeling condition.

Instruction :

The subjects and the confederates received the following instructions : "We have been studying student's imagination. You will be handed a picture. After looking at the picture for one minute, please think about the situation in the picture and make some stories from your own imagination. Please discuss these comments frankly with your partner after seeing the picture. We leave you three minutes for discussing your thought after seeing the picture.

After finishing your discussions, please fill out a questionnaire. The questionnaire will not be handed to your partner. " After finishing the instructions, we obtained the permission from the dyads to video-record the experiment.

Conversational interaction :

In Session 1, both the subject and the confederate were handed a TAT card in order to

(6)

Kiyofumi lcmKAWA

discuss and make stories for three minutes after viewing this card for one minute. The specific purpose of the interaction in Session 1 was to establish the 'intimacy-equilibrium' between, pairs, before experimental manipulation of interpersonal distance, i.e. , increased immediacy ( changing nearer distance) .

After Session 1, the subject and the confederate filled out the following questionnaire at separate locations in the experimental room : (a) Impressions to the partner with 8 items ; (b) Degree of arousal with 7 items ; (c) Perception of immediacy, i.e. , recognition of interpersonal distance consisting of 2 items with a 9 rating scale ; (d) Perception of non-verbal behavior of the confederate (partner) using

7

items. All of the items, except for

(c), used a 10 point rating scale.

After the interaction in Session 2, the subjects and the confederates rated the 'Nonverbal Skill Scale' based on Wada (1992) which consisted of 10 items with a

6

point rating scale.

This scale was used in order to check the homogeneity of personality between the subjects and the confederates in this regard.

The behavior of the subjects and the confederates was recorded using two video cameras, respectively. The separate picture by two cameras were recorded on tapes making so as to place paired person . (i.e. , subject and confederate) nearly face to face with each other through the SONY' s mixer (XV-1000D) .

Measurement of nonverbal categories :

We observed the following nonverbal behavior to analyze the subject's nonverbal adjustment : gaze (abbreviated henceforth as GZ), eye contact (EC), smile (SM), leaning forward (LF), leaning backward (LB) and nodding (NO). For each nonverbal category, we measured frequency, duration time and mean duration time. These three measures were indicated in abbreviation to F (frequency), D (duration time), and M (mean duration time), respectively. Nodding was measured only in terms of ·the frequency. In addition to these nonverbal categories, we analyzed following compound categories : gaze during speaking

(abbreviated as SPGZ), gaze during listening (LIGZ), smile during speaking (SPSM), smile during listening (LISM). Nodding during listening {LINO) was added to above nonverbal categories, considering our preliminary observation' in female students' conversation.

N adding during listening might be specific in Japanese female students.

Digitalization for coding nonverbal behavior :

Three raters viewed and simultaneously judged the videotapes for each of these nonverbal categories. Each judge pressed a button on a personal computer when an instance occurred and held it down for the duration of the designated behavior. An instance of the nonverbal category was changed into a O - 1 digital unit by the computer. Th.us we obtained the

(7)

frequency and the total duration time of each nonverbal behavioral category.

We trained the three judges until an index of inter-rater agreements among the three judges reached more than 70%. After the agreement between all the three judges met this criterion, we permitted ourselves to use the coding data from any one of the three judges. To examine our coding reliability, we selected randomly three subjects' data, and we obtained a high mean of inter-rater agreement for measuring nonverbal behavior. These inter-rater agreements ranged from 78. 5% to

92.

0% and also the mean percent of the overall agreement was 83. 6% (SD

=

4. 59) for all nonverbal categories. The detailed agreements were as follows : 92. 0% for gaze, 88. 5% for smiling, 78. 5% for nodding, 83. 0% for forward leaning, 80. 5% for backward leaning, 83. 0% for speaking, and 79. 5% for listening. These high percentages of judgmental agreements allowed us reliability in· measuring nonverbal behavior.

Results

Check of experimental manipulation :

A two-way ANOVA was carried out for the mean "perception of interpersonal distance change · (Session 2 / Session 1)" and the "perception of labeling (positive or negative)".

The significant difference was obtained for the main effect of condition, F (1, 48) =4. 63, P

<.

05. This meant that the subjects perceived themselves to be nearer to each other in Session 2 than Session 1 for immediacy increased condition (M

=

2. 09, SD

=

1. 87) and perceived no difference between two sessions under the control condition (M

=

1. 08, SD

=

. 48) . Consequently, we obtained significant effectiveness of interpersonal distance manipulation in this experiment.

Nonverbal behavior by confederates in immediacy manipulation :

To confirm whether nonverbal behavior of the confederates except for interpersonal distance was consistent, an ANOVA mixed with the condition (immediacy increase, control) X labeling (positive, negative) for the subjects' cognition using 7 items regarding immediacy behavior (session 2 / session 1) by the confederate was computed. We obtained no significant effects for both the main and the interactions, except for main effect of labeling only in nodding. Consequently, we can be confident that nonverbal behavior by the confederates was largely recognized by the subjects as unchanging between the two sessions.

Check of manipulation for labeling :

To check up whether the manipulation of labeling was successful, a two way analysis of variance with condition (immediacy increase, control) X labeling (positive, negative) was

(8)

Kiyofumi lcHIKAWA

calculated for the subjects' impression of the partner (confederate). We obtained only one of

significant main effect of labeling in Session 1, F ( 1, 48) = 52. 81, P < . 001 and in

Session 2, F ( 1,

48) = 38.

20, P

< .

01. This meant effective manipulation of labeling so that the subjects in the positive labeling showed more preference or favor to the partner

(confederate) than the subjects in the negative labeling.

Homogeneity of non-verbal skill:

A two way ANOV A of condition (immediacy increase, control) X labeling (positive, negative) was calculated for the total score of non-verbal skill scale (score range being from 10 to 60). As a result, all of the main effects and the interaction exhibited non-significance.

As a consequence, the homogeneity of non-verbal skill among subjects in all conditions was confirmed.

Arousal:

In order to make clear the arousal change, an ANOV A mixed with condition (immediacy increase, control) X labeling (positive, negative) for the ratio of mean arousal score .

(session 2 I session 1 ; score range being 1 to 10) was computed. The condition, labeling, and the interaction of condition with labeling revealed no · significant differences in arousal change. Our results showed that the arousal was not evoked even in the immediacy increase condition. It was found that the degree of arousal in Session 1 (M

=

5. 10 in immediacy increase, M = 4. 23 in control) and in Session 2, (M = 4. 26 in immediacy increase condition and M

= 3. 83

in the control) were exhibited. Consid~ring the mid. point of rating scale was 5. 0, this was interpreted as indicating a change toward a more relaxed state instead of being in a nervous state, even for the immediacy increased (i.e., changing to extremely nearer interpersonal distance) condition, unexpectedly. This was opposite indication that was assumed in the arousal model.

Effects of immediacy and labeling on subjects' "nonverbal behavior :

An ANOV A mixed with condition:'{immediacy increase, control) X labeling (positive, negative) was carried out for each nonverbal change score as to frequency, duration time, and mean duration time. The nonverbal change score was derived from the ratio of the Session 2 to Session 1 (session 2 I session 1).

(9)

Table 1-1 Nonverbal Behavior in Each Experimental Condition ( Session 2/Session 1)

Increase (n=35) Control (n= 17)

Category Positive (n=l 7) Negative (n=l8) Positive (n=8) Negative (n=9)

F 1.15 1.25 .92 .95

(1.53) (.31) (.16) (.31)

Gaze D .89 .97 1.03 1.13

(.31) (.27) (.30) (.25)

M

.90 .79 1.13 1.29

(.45) (.22) (.34) (.48)

F 1.08 1.14 1.22 .80

(.45) (.45) (.34) (.21)

Smiling D 1.04 1.07 .98 1.11

(.27) (.36) (.10) (.41)

M 1.08 1.64 .88 1.45

(.46) (2.98) ·(.32) (.62)

Nodding F 1.16 1.15 1.61 1.01

(.37) (.55) (1.12) (.42)

F .15 .23 .96 1.00

(.47) (.49) (1.18) (1.41)

Forward D .00 .10 2.99 .46

Leaning (.00) (.22) (5.74) (.52)

M

.00 3.11 · 7.99 .44

(.00) (10.72) (17.67) (.53)

F .95 l.87 1.87 1.11

(.76) (2.15) (1.43) (.45)

Backward D 15.49 19.60 2.92 15.68

Leaning (27.29) (25.93) (3.50) (36.41)

M

12.03 24.72 1.27 8.27

(13.15) (31.36) (1.14) (18.00)

F .91 1.02 1.05 1.23

(.36) (29) (.21) (.40)

Eye D .76 .85 .94 1.44

Contact (.45) (.30) (.32) (.59)

M

.79 .83 .89 1.16

(.20) (.14) (.17) (.27)

(1) The upper side in each cell indicates the mean value of dividing session 2 / session 1.

(2) Values enclosed in parentheses represent standard deviation. Means and SDs were rounded down to the third decimal place.

(3) F, D, and M represent frequency, duration time, and mean time respectively.

(10)

Kiyofumi ^lcHIKAw A

Table 1-2 Nonverbal Behavior in Each Experimental Condition ( Session 2/Session 1)

Increase (n=35) Control (n=l 7)

Category Positive (n=l 7) Ne~ative (n=18) Positive (n=8) Ne~ative (n=9)

F .93 1.07 1.01 1.11

Gaze (.31) (.29) (.27) (.70)

during

_D

.91 1.04 .96 1.33

speaking (.47) (.36) (.40) (1.21)

M

.96 .98 .93 1.12

(.28) (.21) (.24) (.31)

F .88 1.14 1.07 .91

Smiling (.28) (.43) (.48) (.25)

during

_D

1.26 1.15 .95 1.26

speaking (.86) (.44) (.23) (.58)

M

1.43 1.12 1.04 1.37

(.72) (.50) (.53) (.48)

F 1.02 1.30 .81 .99

Gaze (.43) (.56) (.18) (.33)

during

_D

.95 .99 .97 1.15

listening (.31) (.28) (.25) (.41)

M

1.11 .83 1."23 1.32

(.65) (.20) (.30) (.68)

F 1.16 1.04 .86 1.01

. Smile (.50) (.44) (.20) (.51)

during

_D

1.14 1.12 .89 1.08

listening (.47) (.31) (.24) (.39)

M

1.01 1.22 1.09 1.14

(.34) (.59) (.41) (.40)

(1) The upper side in each cell indicates the mean value of dividing session 2 / session 1.

(2) Values enclosed in parentheses represent standard deviation. Means and SDs were rounded down to the third decimal place.

Table 1 shows the. nonverbal change score in each nonverbal category. The results of A~OV As are indicated in Table 2. The significant main effects of immediacy condition were observed as follows : in the frequency and mean duration time of gazing ; for total duration time and mean duration time of eye contact ; frequency and mean duration time of gazing during listening ; frequency and total duration time of leaning forward. Explaining this in _ more detail, all of the significant differences except for the frequency of gazing and the frequency of gaze during listening, showed decreased nonverbal behavior in the increased

(11)

Table 2 ANOV As on Nonverbal Behavior

Category Condition Labelling A*B

F 5.45 * ^.31 ^.08

Gaze D 3.07 + ^1.07 ^.00

M 10.80 ** .04 1.36

F .71 2.18 3.89 *

Smiling D .00 .75 .28

M

.13 1.12 .00

Nodding F .71 2.87 + ^2.68

Forward F 7.28 ** .04 .00

Leaning D 4.13 * 2.16 2.59

M .62 .43 2.50

Backward F .02 .01 2.37

Leaning

D

.62 .65 .17

M

2.81 1.47 .12

Eye F 3.13 + ^2.32 ^.11

Contact D 9.52 ** ^5.78 * ^2.69

M

13.58 ^7.42 ^4.19 *

Gaze F .26 1.01 .02

during

D

.80 1.79 .41

speaking

^M

.47 1.76 1.35

Smiling F .03 .22 3.57 +

during

D

.30 .32 1.27

speaking M .15 .00 3.38 +

Gaze F 3.93 * ^3.16 + ^.15

during

D

.88 1.39 .58

listening M 4.19 * ^.41 ^1.68

Smiling F 1.48 .01 .93

during D 1.65 .49 .89

listening M .00 .93 .34

(2) F values were indicated in the Table.

(3) ** P < .01; * P < .05; + .05 < P < .10

(12)

Kiyofumi lcHIKAWA

immediacy condition (see Figure 2). In other words, when the immediacy increased, i.e., changing to a nearer interpersonal distance, the subjects' GZ (M), FL (F) and FL (D), EC (F), EC (D) , EC (M) , LIGZ (M) showed 'compensatory adjustment' . Only GZ

(F) and LIGZ (F) were observed as 'reciprocal adjustment' which showed a match with the immediacy increase. This might suggest that the measurement of frequency had a different meaning compared with the mean or duration time.

1.25 1.2

...

-

^C:0

^1.15

·-

₀^Cll^Cll

_1.1

-

V)

N

1.05

C: 0

·-

^Cll^Cll0

¹

V)

' - '

.95 .9

Increase Control

Figure 2. Effect of Immediacy Condition in Gaze Frequency

1.25 1.2

...

-

₀^C:

^1.15

....

_Cll

_1.1

Cll Cl)

V)

1.05

...

N C:

1 ....

0

.95

Cl) Cl) Cl)

V)

.9

' - '

.85 .8

Increase Control

Figure 3. Effect of Immediacy Condition in Mean Duration Time of Gaze

*Similar Patterns were observed in FL (F) , FL (D) , EC (D) , EC (M) and LIGZ (M) .

(13)

With regard to the effect of labeling, the significant mam effects of labeling were obtained in the total duration time and also mean duration time of eye contact (see Table

2) .

The frequency of gaze during listening came up short of significance, F (1, 48)

=

3. 16, P

<.

081. The nonverbal behavior of duration time and mean duration time in eye contact showed an increase in the negative labeling compared with the positive labeling. Nodding showed a trend (P

<.

096) of increase in the positive labeling situation.

1.3

,...,

1.28 -

^c::₀

1.26 ...

Cl)

1 .24

Q) ('/)

-

N 1.22 c:: 0

... 1.2

Cl) Cl) Q) ('/)

1.18

"-'

1.16 1.14

Negative Positive

Figure 4 . Effect of Labeling in Nodding

. 96

,...,

.94

- ₌

.9

.92

Cl) Cl) (I) ('/)

-

^N_C

.9

0

.88 ...

Cl) Cl)

(I)

.86

('/)

"-'

.84 .82

Negative Positive

Figure 5. Effect of Labeling in Mean Duration Time of Eye Contact

*Similar Patterns was observed in EC(D) and LIGZ(F).

(14)

Kiyofumi lcHIKAWA

1.25

•

1.2 _/

- ^1.15

-

^C₀

...

_Cl)

1.1

Cl) /

0

1.05

•

(I) /

Increase

-

^N^C0

_.95 ¹

^/ ^/

... ^Control

...

/

Cl)

.9

^/

0

(I) /

..._,,

.85

^{. 8}

•

.75

Negative Positive

Figure 6. Interaction of Condition with Labelling in Frequency of Smile

1.2 --,

1.15

- _-

C 0

1 .1 ^·, " '

_'·

...

_Cl)

'·

1.05 "

Cl)

·,,,

0

(I)

" • ^Increase

-...

1 ·,. ·,

N C 0

.95 ·, " ^·, ... _Control

"·

...

_Cl)'

"

Cl)

. 9 •

Cl) (I) ..._,,

.85

.8

.75

Negative Positive

Figure 7. Interaction of Condition with Labeling in Mean Duration Time of Eye Contact

Paying attention to the significant interactions, in unchanging interpersonal distance, (i.

e. , control group), positive labeling caused an increase in the frequency of smiling of the subjects (see Figure

6) .

On the other hand, labeling between positive and negative one set off the least effects on the mean duration time of eye contact. In other words, the mean duration time of eye contact showed compensatory adjustment regardless of labeling in control condition (see Figure 7) .

(15)

Discussion

The arousal model by Patterson (1976) postulated that arousal change is a prerequisite for the nonverbal adjustment behavior. However, we did not obtain any significant arousal change that was measured using the questionnaire. On the contrary, the direction of arousal change unexpectedly showed rather a more relaxed state instead of being in a nervous state.

O'Connor and Gifford (1988) have pointed out as for arousa(in the arousal model that intentional-close and forced close make subjects not to attribute negative qualities to the confederate. This might suggest the importance of the experimental manipulation being matchable or not to the real life. If the experimental manipulation of immediacy was so to say a forced one, it might have been influenced· through a kind of experimenter effects.

Schffenbauer and Schiavo (1976) suggested that close interaction distances amplified the quality of the interaction so that for a positive interaction, there was more liking for a close rather than for a far partner, while for a negative interaction, a close partner was liked less.

Brady and Walker (1978) suggested that an increase in interpersonal distance was found in anxiety-inducing situations relative to low stress situations. However, Kahn and McGaughey ( 1997) have suggested that the proximity-attraction relationship would vary with the meaning attributed to proximity. When distance was experimentally manipulated and attraction measured as an dependent variable, the relationship was not obtained as same in our experiment.

Degree of Intimacy

B's Reaction

Emotional State

Behavioral Adjustment

...

.

^'

' '

'

.

^'

:

,---·---·---··----·---··

... ~ :

: : : :

' ' . - - - , Positive ~ - - - ~ • ,

j ^1:, No change 1 - - - 1

I

Increase Intimacy~---; j j ..._ __ _, ~ - - - 1 . i Decrease Intimacy ··-···-·-·-:

Negative

Change in

A's Intimacy Great

i--->~I

^Positive ~---il:.~I t::ompensation ~---·--- ... ...

,__ _ _ _, Negativ~

Medium Positive 1 - - - 1 . i Reciprocity Weak

'···:~~=~·~···~·==~·:~··+···1

·---···

...

·

: ... :

Figure 8. Nonverbal Sensitivity Model of Perceived Intimacy ( Ichikawa, 2000a)

(16)

Degree of Immediacy

Kiyofumi lcHIKAWA B's Reaction

Emotional State

Behavioral Adjustment

.

r:_···---···---··· ... _ ... ^1:.

l l:_···:~:~=:~···~:···j:=~=:··;::::::; ^!

I ---- ~---

_Negative ^•

I

_·Decrease Intimacy

l···j

_•

Change in

A's Intimacy

-I

^Positive

1----1---:!• .__G_re_at_~----'~-: Negative

i---')1-1

Compensation ~···

.__P_o_sit_iv_e _

_r---31-.i

Reciprocity Medium

immediacy Weak

increase

Negative + - - - - ~ Compensation

Positive 1 - - - ~ Compensation immediacy

decrease

----·.:

···:·1

Negative + - - - - ~ Reciprocity

···---^..

---···---·---·----··

... ..

---·---

^..···---··· ..

--

... . ...

---···---·---···

^..

····---·--·---··

... .

Figure 9. Nonverbal Serisitivity Model of Perceived Immediacy

The result of arousal no-change was also the same as Ichikawa (2000b). Despite evoking non-arousal in the subjects' conscious level, compensatory adjustment of nonverbal behavior was observed copiously in the frequency, total duration time and mean duration time of eye contact, frequency and total duration time of forward leaning, mean duration time of gaze during listening. On the other hand, the reciprocity of nonverbal adjustment was observed only in the frequency of gazing. Consequently, we could say that arousal change might not be a necessary pre-requisite for the arousal model.

Regarding to the effects of labeling, positive emotion was evoked in nodding. On the other hand, total duration. time and mean duration time of eye contact, frequency of gaze during listening increased for the partner in negative labeling condition. In terms of the results of interaction, both the frequency in smiling and the mean duration time of eye contact hardly indicate the labeling effects in the immediacy increase condition, compared with the control

(no-change) group as shown in Figures 6 and 7.

In this study, almost all significant nonverbal adjustments showed the compensation mentioned above. Considering the reciprocal adjustment was observed only in the frequency of gazing. Some measure, for example, 'frequency', might connect in this regard under combination with specific nonverbal categories. In case of the frequency in eye contact showed compensation. Eye contact would be affected by the increased distance rather than gazing, even in the measurement of frequency.

(17)

In respect to the. manipulation of increased immediacy, we adopted the interpersonal distance in Session 2 as 27. 5 cm sitting at a right angle to the table. In this experiment, only interpersonal distance was used as a means of immediacy manipulation. Compared to Ichikawa (2000b) that used 71 cm in this regard, we adopted an extremely close interpersonal distance (i.e. , increased immediacy) between pairs expecting to evoke the arousal in Session 2.

On the meaning of· 'arousal', Wada (1990) stated "generally speaking, a change in immediacy expressed by the other would not cause much intensive feeling, however, arousal level connected with immediacy change might be a difference of opinion". In this experiment, enhancement of arousal was measured using a rating scale. The results of this arousal level were lower in Session 2 for both subjects in the control and immediacy increase conditions.

We should bear in mind that the distance in Session 2 for the increased immediacy group was exceedingly close (27. 5 cm), and this also meant very close intimacy. Thought given the immediacy level, it should not be surprising that a noticeable arousal change was evoked.

The subjects and the confederates in this study were female undergraduate students in the same

· university. Accordingly, 'arousal' may not be occurred so readily. We found that 'arousal' was not a necessary condition for the arousal model by Patterson (1976).

Multivariate regression analyses were computed to confirm the connection of labeling with distance perception (i.e. , increased immediacy) for some nonverbal behavior. GZ (M)

= .

36

*

(favorableness) - . 49

*

(distance perception), R

= .

49, R²

= .

22 ; LIGZ (M)

= .

38

*

= .

39, R²

= .

15

; SM (F)

= .

63

*

= .

76, R²

= .

51.

These mathematical formulas meant when distance was perceived as long and was preferred (i.

e. , positive labeling), then the nonverbal behavior increased. In another words, the valence of labeling and the cognition of the immediacy (distance in this case) functioned as opposites with each other. It would be necessary to confirm whether any nonverbal behavior has another function in this regard.

The subjects and the confederates in this study were all female students, because of difficulties for gathering subjects and especially confederates. Ichikawa (2000b) dealt with the sex differences. For example, as for frequency in forward leaning, male students showed compensatory nonverbal adjustment comparing with female ones being observed matching adjustment, and regarding the frequency and total duration time in smiling during listening, female students showed compensatory adjustment contrary to male subjects showing reciprocal adjustment. Limited to the immediacy condition, roughly speaking, total duration time for backward leaning and total duration time in gaze during listening was significant only in Ichikawa (2000b). This might be attributable having used both male and female subjects and confederates.

(18)

Kiyofumi lcHIKA WA

We have tried to revise the arousal model by Patterson (1976) in khikawa (1997, 2000 a). Ichikawa (2000b) proposed a tentative model named the· "nonverbal sensitivity model of perceived intimacy". We here showed a small modification in our revising model. Ichikawa (1997) proposed a revised model for the first time in order to explain overall adjustments of nonverbal behavior including exceptions the arousal model by Patterso·n (1976). Ichikawa (2000b) stated the following regarding to arousal model in Figure 8 : (1) The arousal changes would not be a necessary condition. (2) When one perceived a great immediacy change in the other, then one would exhibit compensatory adjustment in nonverbal behavior regardless of the positive or negative labeling. (3) The labeling would effect the adjustment only when one would perceive the partner's immediacy change as being medium or weak.

When people recognized the degree of immediacy change by the other as being not extreme, reciprocal adjustment would be caused in the situation of positive labeling. On the other hand, negative affection (labeling) would induce compensatory adjustments for the nonverbal behavior. We conceived that even when the other's immediacy would not change, labeling

(preference) itself at that time would affect nonverbal behavior as drawn in Figure 8.

We named the revised model as the "Nonverbal Sensitivity Model of Perceived Intima- cy", considered from the viewpoint of the perceived degree of immediacy as indicated in Figure 8. When we compared the results of each nonverbal adjustment, for example, results of Figure 2 and Figure 3, we should consider the implication of the compensatory or reciprocal adjustment depending on the measures of nonverbal behavior. Are there any different functions among nonverbal measures? When considering nonverbal adjustment for compensatory or reciprocal adjustment, frequency and duration time or mean duration time may have different functions in this regard, i.e. , for specific nonverbal categories.

In this study, we should point out that only the situation of "immediacy increase" was focussed on. Coutt and Ledden (1997) showed compensatory results in favor of the equilibrium theory under both while moved closer and also moved further way conditions.

However, Ishii et. al., (1996) examined Patterson's (1976) arousal model from the viewpoint of both immediacy increased and immediacy decreased condition. Regarding the frequency of gazing, gazing during speaking, and gaze during sile~t, Ishii, •et al., (1996) indicated in the immediacy increase condition that mutual nonverbal adjustments (i.e. , reciprocity) were shown in the positive labeling and compensation in the negative labeling.

On the other hand, in the· immediacy decrease condition, compensatory adjustments in the positive labeling, and reciprocity in the negative labeling were observed.

Figure

8

shows a tentative revised arousal model that applied to the immediacy increase situation (Ichikawa, 2000b). Patterson (1976) assumed both increased or decreased 'intimacy' to explain arousal model. Consequently, we assumed different and opposite functions between increased and decreased immediacy conditions, taking account of the experiment

(19)

mentioned above (Ishii, et al. ,

1996).

In conclusion, we proposed a fine modification of the nonverbal sens1t1v1ty model of perceived immediacy in Figure

9,

including both increasing and also decreasing immediacy conditions.

References

· Aiello, J. R. (1972). A test of equilibrium theory : Visual interaction in relation to orientation, distance and sex of interactants. Psychonomic Science, 27, 335- 336.

Andersen, P. A., and Andersen, J. F. (1984). The exchange of nonverbal intimacy A critical review of dyadic models. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 327 - 349.

Aoki, T. (1970). A study on value systems of college students. The Japanese Journal of Psycholo-

gy, 41, 83-89.

Argyle, M., and Dean, J. (1965). Eye Contact, Distance and Affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289 -304.

Brady, A. T., and Walker, M. B. (1978). Interpersonal distance as a function of situationally induced anxiety. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 127-133.

Breed, G. (1972). The effect of intimacy : Reciprocity or retreat. British Journal of Clinical Psy- chology, 11, 135-142.

Burgoon, J. k., Le Poire, B. A., Beuter, L. E., Bergan, J., and Engle, D. (1992). Non- verbal behaviors as indices of arousal Extension to the psychotherapy context. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 159-178.

Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. NewYork: Academic Press.·

Cappella, J. N., and Green, J. 0. (1984). The effects of distance and individual differences in arousability on nonverbal involvement: A test of discrepancy-arousal theory. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 259- 286.

Coutts, L. M., and Ledden, M. (1977). Nonverbal compensatory reactions to changes 1n interpersonal proximity. The Journal of of Social Psychology, 102, '283 - 290.

Coutt, L. M., Schneider, F. W., and Montgomery, S. (1980). An investigation of the arousal model of interpersonal intimacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 545-561.

Firestone, I. J. (1977). Reconciling verbal and nonverbal models of dyadic communication. Envi-

" .

ronmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 2, 30-44.

Freedman, N., and Hoffman, S. P. (1967). Kinetic behavior in altered clinical states : An approach to the objective analysis of motor behavior during clinical interviews. Perceptual Motor Skills, 24, 525-533.

Fujimori, T. (1980). Effects of attitude similarity and topic importance on interpersonal attraction -with relation to the dimensions of attraction-. The Japanese Journal of Experimental Social

(20)

Kiyofumi lcHIKA w A

Psychology, 20, 35-43. (In Japanese with English abstract)

Hale, J. L., and Burgoon, J. K. (1984). Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 287-314.

Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Doubleday & Company, Inc., : NewYork. (Trans- lated into Japanese by Hidaka, T., and Sato, N. in 1970, Misuzu Shobo : Tokyo)

Ichikawa, K. (I 997) . A study of revised arousal model. Joint Meeting of The 4Sh Conference of the Japanese Group Dynamics Association and The Second Conference of the Asian Association of Social Psychology, (held at Kyoto) Abstracts, 109.

Ichikawa, K. (2000a) . A proposal for a revised arousal model of interpersonal intimacy. Dore, F.

Y. (Ed.) International Journal of Psychology, 35, Abstracts of the XVII International Congress of Psychology (held at Stockholm), 436.

Ichikawa, K. (2000b). A consideration of a revised arousal model in interpersonal dyads. Memoirs of the Faculty of Education, Kagawa University, Part II, 50, 27-44.

Iizuka, Y., Mishima, K., and Matsumoto, T. (1989). A study of the arousal model of interpersonal intimacy. Japanese Psychological Research, 31, 127- 136.

Ishii, M., Suekane, K., and Hirata,, M. (1996). A study of nonverbal behavior in conversation : Examination of arousal model by Patterson. Undergraduate thesis, Kagawa University, unpub- lished. (*)

Jourard, S. M., and Friedman, R. (1970). Experimenter-subject distance and self-disclosure.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 278-282.

Kahn, A., and McGaughey, T. A. (1997). Distance and liking When moving close produces increased liking. Sociometry, 40, 138-144.

Kaplan, K. J., Firestone, I. J., Klein, K. W., and Sodikoff, C. - (1983). Distancing in dyads : A comparison of four models. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 108-115.

Mehrabian, A. (1969). Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1, 203-207. (Quoted in Patterson, M. L., 1983, Nonverbal Behavior: A functional Perspective. Springer-Verlag : NewYork.)

Nichols, K. A., and Champness, B. G. (1971). Eye gaze and the GSR. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 623-626.

O'Connor, B. P., and Gifford, R. (1988). A test among models of nonverbal immediacy reactions : Arousal-labeling, discrepancy-arousal, and social cognition. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 6-33.

Patterson, M. L. (1973). Compensation in nonverbal immediacy behaviors : A review._ Sociometry, 36, 237-252.

Patterson, M. L. (1976). An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy. Psychological Review, 83, 235-245.

Patterson, M. L., Jordan, A., Hogan, M. B., and Frerker, D. (1981). Effects of nonverbal intimacy on arousal and behavioral adjustment. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 5, 184-198.

(21)

Patterson, M. L. (1982). A sequential functional model of nonverbal behavior. Psychological Review, 89, 231-249.

Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., and Payne, S. K. (1987). Nonverbal Behavior in Inter- personal Relations. Prentice Hall Inc. : New Jersey.

Russo, N. F. (1975). Eye contact, interpersonal distance, and the equilibrium theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 497-502.

Schiffenbauer, A., and Schiavo, R. S. (1976). Physical distance and attraction : An intensification effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 274-282.

Schultz, R., and Barefoot, J. (1974). Non-verbal responses and affiliative conflict theory. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 237-243.

Togawa, Y. (1976). Thematic Apperception Test pictures for Japanese. Kaneko Shobou : Tokyo.

Wada, M. (1987). Reanalysis of Argyle and Dean's affiliative conflict theory. The Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 181-191. (in Japanese) (*)

Wada, M. (1990). Interpersonal communication and cognition. In Daibo, I., Ando, K., and Ikeda, K. (Eds.) Perspective of Social Psychology 2. 39-55. Seishinshobo: Tokyo. (In Jap- anese)· (*)

Wada, M. (1992). Reconstruction of nonverbal skill scale and social scale. Bulletin of Tokyo Gakugei University Sect. 1, 43, 123-136.

( *) : The title was translated into English by the author.