JNB Volume 2 Issue 1 Fall 1977

Miller, Stuart and Kathleen M. Nardini 1977. Individual differences in the perception of crowding. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 2(1): 3-13.

Since Stokols' (1972) distinction between population density as a physical variable and crowding as a psychological state, research and theory have been directed toward a better understanding of the experiential nature of crowding. Accordingly, a number of investigators have interpreted crowding as a condition of social overload (Desor, 1972; Esser, 1972; Valins & Baum, 1973; Heft & Adams, Note 1). (Miller & Nardini 1977: 3)
Apparently several first volumes of this journal are dedicated to studies of crowding.
Individuals who are low in affiliation, arousal seeking, and extraversion and high in anxiety would tend to experience negative affects in the presence of others and may be more likely to experience "unwanted social interaction." Thus, for these individuals, relatively low levels of stimulation may produce feelings of being crowded. Put in another way, individuals who (a) prefer being alone (affiliation), (b) prefer a constant, predictable environment (arousal seeking), (c) primarily attend to internal stimuli (extraversion), and (d) are already highly anxious (anxiety) would be particularly susceptible to ovelroad from social stimulation. Conversely, individuals who are high in affiliation, arousal seeking, and extraversion and low in anxiety would tend to place positive value upon social stimulation as it would be relevant to the satisfaction of important needs - e.g., the need to be with people, the need for variety and change - and, this it would take relatively high levels of social stimulation for these people to feel crowded. (Miller & Nardini 1977: 4)
I consider myself the first type of individual, that is, particularly susceptible to overload from social stimulation. It is interesting that extraversion is marked and introversion is unmarked - that is, introversion is counted as merely low extraversion, as if introversion didn't even exist.
Subjects were instructed to "place as many people as you can here without overcrowding them. In other words, stop placing figures in the room when you feel that one more person would make the room too crowded." Differences in the number of figures placed in the room were taken as a reflection of an individual's tolerance for, or susceptibility to, crowding. (Miller & Nardini 1977: 5)
Is that a reliable measurement? What if people don't invest their figures with a sense of crowding that they themselves possess in real life? What if these differences don't reflect personality but a rather culturally learned proxemic rules?
(1) All figures were put into groups of two or more (G). (2) Most figures were grouped while other appeared to be alone, groups and singles (GS). Although most subjects clearly fell into these two categories, for other subjects (eight males and eight females), it was difficult to determine whether each figure was alone or was a member of one large group surrounding the subject. These (latter) subjects were dropped from subsequent analyses. (Miller & Nardini 1977: 7)
If it's not clear whether you belong to a group or not, you are dropped.
The strictly quantitative approach of simply adding up the number of individual figures (using experimenter-defined units) ignores the fact that people are active social beings who organize their environment according to their needs, goals, and expectations about the nature of social situations. (Miller & Nardini 1977: 10)
But how about the fact that some people are not active social beings?
Finally, the authors feel that, at this point, caution should be exercised in generalizing from the present study, where a projective measure of perceived crowding was used, to naturalistic situations in which crowding is immediately experienced as a complex system involving perceptual, cognitive, affective, physiological, and behavioral components. (Miller & Nardini 1977: 11)
Caution: does not apply to real life.

O'Neal, Edgar, Christine Caldwell and Gordon G. Gallup 1977. Territorial invasion and aggression in young children. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 2(1): 14-25.

A very strong relationship between territorial invasion and intraspecific aggression has been inferred from naturalistic observations of animal populations. The relationship has been extrapolated to the realm of human affairs by a number of popular writers (e.g., Ardrey, 1966; Storr, 1968). Despite the intuitive appeal of the notion that invasion leads to aggression in Homo sapiens, it has not been subjected to direct experimental test. (O'Neal, Caldwell & Gallup 1977: 14)
These popular writers and their books are: Ardrey, R. The territorial imperitave. New York: Delta, 1966. and Storr, A. Human aggression. New York: Atheneum, 1968.
The biological survival function of territorial behavior for individual humans can be argued most strongly within the context of infrahuman analogues, and other, more cognitive, explanations of it recently have been advanced. In these accounts, human territoriality is understood as but one of a range of mechanisms available to an individual human, in regulating access by others to the self (Altman, 1975) or in insuring his freedom of choice (Proshansky, Ittelson, & Rivlin, 1970). It is also emphasized that fighting in defense of territory is not common in individual humans (Edney, 1976). (O'Neal, Caldwell & Gallup 1977: 15)
Another aspect to add to the topic of nonverbal regulation. Here regulation concerns Jakobson's channel component and phatic function.
In the animal literature, territoriality has two hypothetical orientations: object-centered territory (defense of a specific object irrespective of its location) and space-centered territory (defense of particular geographic area with definite boundaries). (O'Neal, Caldwell & Gallup 1977: 16)
This distinction has an analogue in proxemics: the fixed (space-centered territory) and unfixed (object-centered territory).
The clown role for the confederate was employed because in previous studies (e.g., Hanratty, O'Neal, & Sulzer, 1972) a small clown was found to be a familiar and nonthreatening figure for young children. (O'Neal, Caldwell & Gallup 1977: 16)
What about coulrophobia?
As the confederate performed each action, the experimenter remarked in a matter-of-fact tone, "Do-do is going into your place ... Dodo is playing with your toy." (O'Neal, Caldwell & Gallup 1977: 18)
Well that is not at all contrived.
It may seem surprising that the subjects in this study responded with aggression to invasions of territory, while in a number of recent studies (e.g., Russo, 1975; Krail & Leventhal, 1976) children react with withdrawal to personal space invasion. However, the incongruity seems less acute when one considers the fact that withdrawal is instrumental to removal of personal space invasion, while withdrawal may actually ensure that the territorial invader remains in control of the disputed territory. It would not appear illogical, then, to allow the possibility that a usual response to invasion of personal space is withdrawal and of territory is aggression. (O'Neal, Caldwell & Gallup 1977: 23)
Because withdrawing from a personal space invasion restores satisfactory personal space.

Patterson, Miles L. 1977. Tape-recorded cuing for time-sampled observations of nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 2(1): 26-29.

Research on the nonverbal components of social interaction typically involves the observation and evaluation of a variety of subtle behaviors. The use of film or videotape recordings in studying patterns of nonverbal behavior is usually very desirable, and in some cases almost a necessity, e.g., in studying very rapid changes in facial expression. Furthermore, the relative permanence of film or videotape permits constant access to valuable data records. In addition, sophisticated techniques for linking film or videotape recordings to computer hardware can facilitate the efficient selection, identification, and scoring of recorded interactions (Ekman & Friesen, 1969; Trochim, 1976). (Patterson 1977: 26)
Since almost everyone now carries a smartphone with a 5 megapixel camera, the expense of "videotape" is no longer an issue. Is there something that still is?
For example, the filming of naturally occurring interactions in field settings is often difficult to do well without being obtrusive. (Patterson 1977: 26)
Edward Hall carried a little spy-camera. Today, you can be relatively unobtrusive by appearing to use your phone for texting or calling while actually recording video.
Self-manipulative behaviors (rubbing hands together, scratching, tugging at clothes, etc.) and leg movements were simply scored as either being present or absent during that 5-second period. (Patterson 1977: 28)
And what would one do with this quantitative data? I'd be more interested in a qualitative analysis of self-manipulative behaviours.

Firestone, Ira J. 1977. Reconciling verbal and nonverbal models of dyadic communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 2(1): 30-44.

The experimental literature on dyadic communication has developed along two separate lines over the past decade. One area of research has focused on nonverbal dimensions of communication, examining relationships between interactor's distance, eye contact, body orientation, posture, and movements. The second area of research has focused on the verbal aspects of communication, studying the determinants of speech fluency, latency, and breadth or depth of disclosure. (Firestone 1977: 30)
Why not nonverbal aspects and verbal dimension?
A more careful consideration of these reviews suggests a startling conclusion: The dominant models proposed to order these two aspects of communication are quite divergent and perhaps incompatible. (Firestone 1977: 30)
This is also the impression one may get from comparing the communication models of Ruesch and Jakobson.
In this section some of the relevant research literature is reviewed. Studies were included if they contained both variation in level of a verbal or nonverbal distancing behavior(s) presented to subjects and also included one of these behaviors among the dependent variables assessed. This categorization yields four types of study designs: effects of verbal disclosure on verbal behavior; effects of verbal disclosures on nonverbal behavior; effects of nonverbal distance treatments on nonverbal behavior; and effects of nonverbal distance treatments on verbal behavior. (Firestone 1977: 33-34)
This is stunningly similar to Ducasse's verbo-real etc. model.
An alternate explanation of this finding stresses the increased demands for self-reflection and cognitive activity required to deal with personal questions. Visual regard offered by speakers is known to be much lower than that offered by listeners (Exline, Gray, & Schuette, 1965; Kendon, 1967). Speaking requires more concentration than listening, and there may be the same difference in cognitive effort required to deal with personal versus impersonal questions. (Firestone 1977: 37)
What if you learn some text by heart and speak while maintaining eye contact? How creepy will that be?
Attraction, for example, does not seem to influence disclosure (Derlega, Harris, & Chaikin, 1974; Klein, Kaplan, & Firestone, Note 1) but does affect nonverbal approach. This could be because information is the main commodity being conveyed via the nonverbal modality of communication, whereas affect is central to proxemic dimensions. Foa and Foa (1972) argue that different rules of interpersonal exchange hold for commodities like affect and information. If we consider that the former is transitory, affection may be given and then withdrawn while information once provided cannot be taken away. Thus, there is no reason to suppose that the same forms of relationship hold for different commodities being exchanged during communication. (Firestone 1977: 41)
What sweeping generalizations! One could argue that affect cannot be negated: you can refute previous information, but you cannot refute previous affects. And how can you consider affect a commodity?
Stranger disclosure was markedly sensitive to interpersonal distance, while spousal disclosure was uninfluenced by distance. (Firestone 1977: 42)
People who know each other don't rely on immediate nonverbal cues as much.

Woolfolk, Robert L., Anita E. Woolfolk and Karen S. Garlinsky 1977. Nonverbal behavior of teachers: Some empirical findings. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 2(1): 45-61.

Nonverbal behaviors were chosen that had been identified in previous research to communicate evaluative attitudes toward an addressee. (Woolfolk, Woolfolk & Garlinsky 1977: 47)
In a very mehrabian manner, we of course do not need to know what those nonverbal behaviours were.
Body orientation was excluded from the study because this behavior is decoded differently for male and female communicators (Mehrabian, 1968). (Woolfolk, Woolfolk & Garlinsky 1977: 48)
Because Mehrabian is such a trustworthy source.
The nonverbal behaviors from the evaluative dimension that met all criteria for inclusion in the present study were facial pleasantness (smile) and affirmative head nod. Tone of voice (friendly, warm, approving, versus hostile, cold, disapproving) was included as a third nonverbal component to be systematically manipulated. (Woolfolk, Woolfolk & Garlinsky 1977: 48)
Haha, facial pleasantness, haha. That is so exact!
Nonverbally negative females were perceived as significantly more negative than either nonverbally negative males or nonverbally positive females. In similar fastion female teachers, when they were nonverbally positive, were rated as more attractive than in conditions where they were nonverbally negative. There was a nonsignificant tendency for nonverbally negative male teachers to be viewed as more attractive than nonverbally positive males. (Woolfolk, Woolfolk & Garlinsky 1977: 59)
If you're a female teacher, you are liked when you are positive. If you're a male teacher, it doesn't really matter much.
If greater nonverbal expressiveness by women is a trend general to our culture, as suggested by Jones (1960), then it is possible that children learn to "pay attention to the words" when men are communicating and consequently to focus less upon the nonverbal aspects of male adult communication. (Woolfolk, Woolfolk & Garlinsky 1977: 59)
Conclusion: children are sexist!
A recent study (Redd, Morris, & Martin, 1975) found that although a positive adult was most preferred by children, a negative adult was a more potent controller of the children's behavior. Preliminary data from our own laboratory indicate that students work harder for teachers who are nonverbally negative. However, it would be premature to conclude that "nice adults are losers" when it comes to controlling child behavior. Much additional research is necessary to expand knowledge of the interrelationships among adult behavior, child affective response, and adult influence. (Woolfolk, Woolfolk & Garlinsky 1977: 60)
One aspect of being "nonverbally negative" that does seem to pay off is brow furrow. Nick Offerman told in an interview that he worked as a security guard at a night club and didn't have to punch anyone as long as he could achieve eye contact and display his mighty brow furrow.


Post a Comment