Non Verbal Communication Competence

Understanding Nonverbal Communication Competence

As we age, we internalize social and cultural norms related to sending (encoding) and interpreting (decoding) nonverbal communication.
Sending nonverbal signals: children tend to send unmonitored signals; this tendency reduces as they get older and begin to monitor and perhaps censor or mask those signals (Andersen, 1999).
Interpreting nonverbal messages: as we gain experience as communicators, we may think we’re better at decoding, but effective encoding/decoding requires strategies and practice.
Education and training in nonverbal communication can lead to gains in knowledge and skill (Riggio, 1992).
Once initial effort yields positive reactions from others, people are motivated to continue honing nonverbal skills because others enjoy interacting with those who are skilled at encoding/decoding; this feedback loop reinforces continued practice.
Overall emphasis: improving nonverbal competence requires commitment, practice, and conscious application; there is not a built-in natural perfection.

Guidelines for Sending Nonverbal Messages

Nonverbal cues account for much of the content from which we form first impressions; people make judgments after brief exposure.
Our competence in nonverbal communication helps determine how an interaction will proceed and whether it will take place at all.
People skilled at encoding nonverbal messages are often evaluated more favorably after initial encounters because they are more attention-getting, engaging, and can convey warmth via immediacy behaviors; these factors enhance perceived charisma.
Learning and practicing nonverbal encoding/decoding can improve interactional outcomes and social evaluations.
People generally enjoy interactions with others who encode/decode well; positive reactions reinforce continued skill development.

Multichannel Nature of Nonverbal Communication

Nonverbal messages are multichannel and rarely sent in isolation; signals often combine with others (e.g., posture plus touch or eye behavior) to form a nonverbal cluster (Pease & Pease, 2004).
Nonverbal clusters require internal consistency; nonverbal congruence refers to consistency among different nonverbal expressions within a cluster.
Congruent nonverbal communication is more credible and effective than ambiguous or conflicting cues.
Even with intent to be congruent, decoding can reveal messages that don’t match the sender’s intent due to variation in conscious encoding across channels.
Multichannel nature can increase credibility but also increase ambiguity.
Awareness of multiple channels helps monitor for incongruence (e.g., a professor leaning forward and nodding signals attention, but regular eye-contact breaks and anxiety at the office door could signal disinterest).

Affects Interactions

Nonverbal communication can influence our own thoughts and emotions, as well as those of others; changing signals can affect trajectories of interaction and internal states.
Example: waiting in a line for a driver’s license renewal, seeing others slow and disorganized can lead to frustration; people may adopt a nonverbal cluster (arms crossed, self-touch) that reinforces frustration and defensiveness.
As nonverbal encoding competence grows, people can manipulate their behaviors to influence outcomes (e.g., service/sales professionals use nonverbal strategies to convey care and value).
Deceptive or manipulative use of nonverbal signals can have negative consequences and ethical implications.
Increased monitoring of nonverbal displays of emotion correlates with greater confidence in public speaking (Riggio, 1992).

Creating Rapport Through Nonverbal Communication

Humans have an innate tendency to mirror each other’s nonverbal behavior; mirroring contributes to subconscious cooperation in daily interactions.
Mirroring can occur in lines, conversations, and social interactions, signaling similarity and belonging (Pease & Pease, 2004).
Mirroring helps build social bonds and mutual liking, and can be used deliberately to enhance rapport.
Anecdotal example: families or groups moving in synchrony during activities (e.g., a backyard cornhole game) can reflect subconscious mirroring that strengthens social connection.
Although mirroring is often subconscious, it can be consciously used to facilitate connection.

Nonverbal Communication Regulates Conversations

Encoding appropriate turn-taking signals helps maintain smooth conversation and prevents rude interruptions.
People with nonverbal encoding competence tend to be more in control of conversations, particularly in settings with status differences or where compliance/dominance is a goal.
Interruptions are usually considered rude; use nonverbal cues (e.g., leaning in, eye contact, or a subtle hand gesture) to indicate you’d like to speak.
Nonverbal cues can regulate talk time and participation in both formal and informal contexts.

Nonverbal Communication and Listening

Good listening involves nonverbal-encoding competence: head nods, eye contact, posture signal attentiveness and understanding.
Active listening combines cognitive listening with outward cues that signal attentiveness to the speaker.
Listeners are expected to maintain more eye contact than the speaker; “listen with your eyes” by maintaining appropriate eye contact.
Avoid distracting adaptors; higher self-monitoring helps detect cues that you aren’t listening and switch to active listening signals when needed.

Nonverbal Communication and Impression Management

Nonverbal messages help express identity and support impression management goals (e.g., appearing competent, socially attractive, engaging).
Being nonverbally expressive in initial encounters often yields more favorable impressions (e.g., smiling, attentive posture, solid handshake).
Nonverbal behavior can influence how students are perceived by teachers and the likelihood that requests are met (Mottet et al., 2004).

Increase Competence in Specific Channels of Nonverbal Communication

While signals come from multiple channels simultaneously, you can improve competence by studying specific channels.
Note on credibility of guidebooks: some provide useful guidance, though credibility varies; examples include The Definitive Book of Body Language (Pease & Pease).

Kinesics (Gestures, Body, Face)

Gestures: Illustrators enhance verbal communication; even in non-visual contexts (like phone interviews) gesturing can make speech more engaging.
Adaptors (self-touch, fidgeting) can undermine credibility in formal contexts; identify personal adaptors and monitor them.
Gestures convey emotional states; be aware of common signals: clenched fists may signal aggression, nail-biting signals nervousness, finger tapping may signal boredom.

Eye Contact

Eye contact is useful for initiating and regulating conversations; make eye contact to signal availability.
Avoiding eye contact can be interpreted as disinterest or deception, but context matters.
To minimize distractions, reduce external distractions (clock, door, blinds).
Eye contact avoidance can be a face-saving or strategic choice in some situations (civil inattention: avoiding eye contact in crowded or emotionally charged situations; Goffman, 2010).

Facial Expressions

Facial expressions are powerful for conveying and regulating emotions; can intensify or mask feelings, or simulate emotions.
Be mindful of emotional contagion effects; facial expressions can influence others’ moods.
Smiles are particularly powerful as immediacy behaviors and for rapport-building; can de-escalate conflict.

Haptics (Touch)

Touch guidelines vary by culture, status, gender, age, and setting.
Generally acceptable touches: arm or shoulder in professional/social settings; avoid touching the hand in professional settings.
Touch to avoid: touching strangers without introduction or help, hurtful touches, startling, interrupting touches, moving someone with touch alone, aggressive or condescending touch, and using touch to deliver criticism.

Vocalics (Paralanguage)

Verbal fillers reduce credibility and message clarity; improving verbal fluency is an indicator of persuasiveness (Hargie, 2011).
Increasing vocal variety (rate, pitch, volume) enhances engagement, comprehension, recall, and motivation.

Proxemics (Distance)

Interpersonal distances can convey status; large offices or suites may reflect higher status, whereas smaller offices reflect lower status.
Be mindful of territorial markers and potential conflicts when boundaries are crossed; violations can trigger strong reactions.

Chronemics (Time)

Talk time and turn-taking influence perceived credibility; those who take longer with their turns may be seen as more credible.
Lateness or promptness signals professionalism and dependability.
Formal time (punctual, on-time) vs informal time (more variability in expectations).
Examples provided illustrate differences in cultural timing norms across contexts.

Personal Presentation and Environment

Dress, grooming, and artifactual signals influence initial impressions and impression management.
Environments can facilitate or hinder communication; seating arrangements (horseshoe or circular) facilitate eye contact and interaction.
Seating position at a table can influence perceived leadership; juries may select forepersons based on seating location.
Be aware of the impact of physical attractiveness bias in decoding and impression formation.

Interpreting Nonverbal Messages: Decoding Principles

There is no universal nonverbal dictionary; cues are context-dependent and culturally relative.
Decoding should focus on patterns rather than single cues; cues are layered and often progressive.
Observe idiosyncratic nonverbal behaviors to understand baseline patterns and deviations over time.
Compare observed cues to the individual’s baseline and consider contextual factors before drawing conclusions.
When cues are ambiguous, examine cues within their channels and contexts; adapt decoding to the person and setting.

Interpreting Cues Within Specific Channels

Kinesics: palms open signals openness/truthfulness; crossed arms signal defensiveness; hands in pockets may indicate shyness or discomfort; thumbs visible can signal dominance; avoid overemphasizing any single cue.
Head Movement and Posture: head-supported by hand may indicate boredom; chin-stroking may signal decision-making; leaning back can signal informality/indifference; leaning forward indicates interest and attentiveness.
Eye Contact: avoidant gaze is not always a sign of disinterest; cognitive processing can cause looking away; sideways glances have multiple meanings depending on accompanying cues (eyebrow, smile, brow furrow, frown).
Facial Expressions: watch for incongruencies between facial expressions and other signals; facial cues can be misleading if taken in isolation; follow up with questions or context.
Haptics: touch must be interpreted with power dynamics; those with more social power tend to initiate more touch with those with less power.
Vocalics: vocal traits can be misinterpreted as personality traits; focus on message content rather than voice quality.
Proxemics: territorial markers (office space) reflect status; respect others’ zones; infringing on territory can trigger anger or conflict.
Personal Presentation: attractiveness bias can lead to decoding errors; evaluate content beyond appearance.

Deception and Nonverbal Cues

People rely on nonverbal cues to judge deception, but there is no reliable nonverbal profile for deception.
Truth bias leads people to believe others are telling the truth; lie bias occurs in some individuals or professions (e.g., law enforcement).
Deception is often accompanied by nonverbal leakage due to attempts to control arousal and cognitive load (Hargie, 2011).
Avenues like polygraphs rely on arousal signals but deception cues arise from the cognitive effort to deceive, not necessarily from deception itself.
Deceptive behaviors are not universal across contexts, and many cues (e.g., adaptors, gaze, facial expressions) can be tied to other emotional or cognitive states (anxiety, guilt, excitement).
More expressive individuals may be better at deceiving; higher self-monitoring is associated with deception ability.
People often improve deception skills with age and experience; actors, politicians, lawyers, and salespeople may be skilled liars due to training and adaptation.
There are common misconceptions about deception: longer response times, slower speech, decreased eye contact, increased movement, more swallowing, and less smiling are not consistent indicators of deception.
People tend to rely more on nonverbal than verbal cues when judging truthfulness, which can lead to incorrect conclusions. Some studies show that deception is more detectable by sound alone than by combining audio and visual cues.

Deception in Practice: Guided Scenarios

Scenario 1: A politician questioned about taxpayer-funded personal vacations.
- Observed cues: looks at reporter, crosses leg, points with finger, stern voice.
- Potential interpretations: credibility, emphasis, or emotional arousal; could indicate confidence or defensiveness.
- Alternative explanations: rehearsed talking point, anxiety, or emphasis on accountability.
- Questions to ask to clarify: What specifically funded the trip? Can you provide documentation? How does this align with public service record?
Scenario 2: Roommate asked to borrow a car; response is hesitant and verbose with apologies.
- Observed cues: hedging language, repeated apologies, open-hand gesture with palms up.
- Potential interpretations: politeness, social pressure, or deflection; nervousness.
- Alternative explanations: current plans or safety concerns; not inherently deceptive.
- Questions to ask: Could you help me arrange alternate transportation? Is there someone else who can drive today?
Scenario 3: Student asked why citations are missing; responds with ownership and minimal eye contact, neck/back of neck rub, facial touch.
- Observed cues: touch to neck/face, minimal eye contact, defensive posture.
- Potential interpretations: confusion about citation rules, defensiveness, or anxiety.
- Alternative explanations: lack of understanding of citation requirements; fear of reprimand.
- Questions to ask: Can you explain which sources were consulted? How did you determine what needed citation?

Improving Competence: Encoding and Decoding Best Practices

To improve encoding competence, increase awareness of the messages you send and the contexts in which you communicate.
Recognize that nonverbal cues are multichannel and can complement, enhance, or contradict each other.
Understand that norms for sending nonverbal messages vary by relational context (e.g., romantic, familial, professional) and by setting (e.g., formal vs informal).
To enhance decoding competence, look for multiple nonverbal cues, avoid overweighing any single cue, and interpret cues within context and prior experience with the person.
While people may try to read deception through nonverbal signals, there is no universally reliable guide; consider inconsistencies in statements and context clues in addition to nonverbal cues.
Recognize common misconceptions about deception (e.g., fixed cues across all people and situations) and be cautious about assuming deception based on a single cue.

Key Takeaways and Ethical Considerations

There is no universal nonverbal dictionary; decoding requires context, culture, and baseline patterns.
Nonverbal competence improves through training, practice, and mindful application in real interactions.
Multichannel nonverbal signals can enhance or distort messages depending on congruence with verbal content and context.
Deception is complex; nonverbal leakage arises from cognitive and physiological arousal rather than deception alone; no single cue reliably signals deception.
Ethical use of nonverbal skills involves transparency, respect for boundaries, and avoidance of manipulation or misleading behavior.

References Mentioned (Selected)

Andersen, P. A. (1999). Nonverbal communication: Forms and functions (p. 125). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Riggio, R. E. (1992). Social interaction skills and nonverbal behavior. In R. S. Feldman (Ed.), Applications of nonverbal behavior theories and research (p. 23). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pease, A., & Pease, B. (2004). The definitive book of body language (p. 21). New York, NY: Bantam.
McKay, M., Davis, M., & Fanning, P. (1995). Messages: Communication skills book (2nd ed.) (p. 54). Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.
Metts, S., & Planlap, S. (2002). Emotional Communication. In Knapp & Daly (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (3rd ed.) (pp. 339–73). Sage.
Mottet, T. P., Beebe, S. A., Raffeld, P. C., & Paulsel, M. L. (2004). The effects of student verbal and nonverbal responsiveness on teachers' liking of students and willingness to comply with student requests. Communication Quarterly, 52(1), 27–38.
Goffman, E. (2010). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order (pp. 322–331). Transaction Publishers.
DePaulo, P. (1992). Applications of nonverbal behavior research in marketing and management. In Feldman (Ed.), Applications of nonverbal behavior theories and research (p. 64). Lawrence Erlbaum.