Mehrabian, Albert 1972. Nonverbal Communication. University of California, Los Angeles
Kohe esimesel leheküljel annab Mehrabian mitteverbaalsele suhtlemisele määratluse:
In its narrow and more accurate sense, "nonverbal behavior" refers to actions as distinct from speech. [...] In the broader sense in which the concept has been used traditionally, however, the term "nonverbal behavior" is a misnomer, for a variety of subtle aspects of speech frequently have been included in discussions of nonverbal phenomena. These include paralinguistic or vocal phenomena, such as fundamental frequency range and intensity range, speech errors or pauses, speech rate, and speech duration. (Mehrabian 1972: 1)
Miks Mehrabian eelistab "implitsiitset kommunikatsiooni"? Sest mitteverbaalse suhtlemise jaoks puuduvad eksplitsiitsed kodeerimisreeglid enamikes kultuurides:
It is more the subtlety, then, of a communication form than its verbal versus nonverbal quality which determines its consideration within the nonverbal literature. Nonverbal behaviors per se form the backbone of this literature. Their subtlety can be attributed to the lack of explicit coding rules for these behaviors in most cultures. Whereas verbal cues are definable by an explicitndictionary and by rules of syntax, there are only vague and informal explanations of the significance of various nonverbal behaviors. Similarly, there are no explicit rules for encoding or decoding paralinguistic phenomena or the more complex combinations of verbal and nonverbal behavior in which the nonverbal elements contribute heavily to the significance of a message. (Mehrabian 1972: 2)
Mida mina mõtlesin arusaamatuse vältimiseks nimetada "prokseemiliseks vahetuseks" (
immediacy), et eristada seda meediumi vahetuseks, on siin Watsoni järgi vahetuskäitumised:
Differential preferences of proxemic or immediacy cues have been the major focus of the available studies of cultural communication codes. Immediacy behaviors are those which increase the mutual sensory stimulation between two persons. (Mehrabian 1972: 6)
Meediasemiootiline diskussioon:
Beyond its use for categorizing posture and position cues, the concept of immediacy broadly describes the extent to which any communication behavior reflects or involves a closer interaction. For the posture and position cues, greater immediacy is the result of increasing physical proximity and/or perceptual availability of the communicator to the addressee. Thus, a face-to-face conversation is more immediate than one via video tape, which in turn is more immediate than a conversation over the telephone. Less immediate still is a communication, such as a letter, involving the written medium only. The basic hypothesis relating immediacy to attitudes predicts that less immediacy is selected by a communicator when he has negative feelings toward his addressee, toward the contents of his communication, or toward his addressee, toward the contents of his communication, or toward the act of communicating those contents (Wiener and Mehrabian, 1968). An employer is using less immediate communication when he expresses discontent to ann employee via an intermediary rather than in a face-to-face confrontation. In line with the hypothesis, the employer's choice illustrates his difficulty or discomfort in expressing what he has to say. The "Dear John" letter also exemplifies the preference for a less immediate medium to convey contents that are distressing to express in person. (Mehrabian 1972: 31)
Mittesuheldavus?
Verbal communications seem to have evolved to denote an "objective" world. Consequently, experiences of affect, evaluation, or preference, which are concomitant with the experience of a complex stimulus, cannot be readily and verbally expressed. That is, in most cultures there are restraints imposed on the communication of affect, evaluation, or preference, particularly when these are negative. If a person experiences affect about an event and does not describe it, then there is an additional component accruing to his experience - the relative uncommunicability of that affect. This unverbalized affect can interfere with the communication process, resulting in ambiguous or idiosyncratic references to internal states. It can also lead to speech disruptions such as the slips, errors, or false starts analyzed by Mahl (1959), or to blocking and hesitation. For example, if someone cannot use the direct form, "Jack makes me anxious," sequencing may be evident in his statements as follows: "I see Jack. . . . I don't feel so good." In this instance both components are present in the communication, but they are not related. (Mehrabian 1972: 32-33)
Miks tüübid kes tänaval jalutades ALATI naeratavad näivad olevat väga madala enesekindlusega:
...frequent smiling in a socially akward situation may indicate a less confident feeling in the communicator rather than a liking for the addressee. In other social situations, however, where the communicator and addressee are moderately familiar, frequency of smiling could be more an indicator of liking than of discomfort. (Mehrabian 1971: 82)
Veel üks nimekiri kommunikatsiooninähtustest, mille üle tasuks mõtiskleda:
Thus, the study included negative affect-arousing cues in combination with social situations varying in formality. One group of factors was: (1) liking of the addressee, (2) degree of conflict and irritation between the speaker and addressee, and (3) pleasantness of the addressee's behavior toward the speaker. A second group of factors related to the formality of the communication situations: (4) the degree of formality of the communication setting, (5) the status of the speaker relative to the addressee, (6) the presence versus absence of bystanders at the time of the addressee to accept unambiguous expressions of dislike toward himself, and (8) the implicit versus explicit quality of a negative message from the addressee to the speaker. (Mehrabian 1972: 111)
Midagi feministliku diskursuse tarbeks:
These findings supported the view expressed by Wiener and Mehrabian (1968) that our culture discourages the explicit verbalization of negative feelings, and consequently the implicit communication channels have assumed the function of expressing such attitudes. The finding that females are better encoders of negative attitude than are females is in line with this cultural explanation, since males seem to have greater latitude to express negative feelings explicitly. (Mehrabian 1972: 145)
Siin ilmneb, et manipulatiivse käitumise puhul suureneb
responsiveness, kuid tegelik positiivne suhtumine suureneb väga vähesel määral. Kõlab loogiliselt, sest veenmisele orienteeritud suhtluskaaslased üritavad tagasside kaudu kontrollida oma esitust, kuid liigse sõbralikkusega kaotaksid nad oma ohjad olukorra üle:
The second factor, responsiveness, which is correlated only slightly with communication of liking, reflects the extent to which the subject is reacting to another, whether in a positive or a negative way. In persuasive communication situations, for instance, in which the nonverbal expression of liking may be construed as manupulative or insincere, it has been found that increased attempts at persuasion are associated with increased responsiveness to the listener but with only slight increases in actual positiveness toward him. (Mehrabian 1972: 153)
Olen varem lugenud selle kohta, kuidas Mehrabiani jt katseid on väärtõlgendatud. Nüüd leidsin, et käesoleva raamatu 182. lehekülg on selle väärtõlgenduse põhjuseks. Kuigi kõne all on taaskord
inconsistent messages, ütleb sõnastus, et need arvud võivad kehtida enamikel juhtudel ("Our studies have produced an answer for
most cases in the form ofa simple linear model."). Kaasa aitab ka see, et sama valem on samal leheküljel kaks korda, esimesel korral "Total liking" ja teisel korral "Total feeling". Mis tuli mulle aga üllatusena on otsene väärtõlgendus: kehakeeleõpikud ütlevad, et 55% infost pärineb "kehakeelest", Mehrabian ise ütleb aga, et näoilmetest!
Total liking = 7% verbal liking + 38% vocal liking + 55% facial liking
Lõppkokkuvõttes oli raamatu sisu midagi muud kui olin lootnud. Tegelik sisu koosnes teaduslike katsetuste kirjeldustest. Nagu oli hoiatatud, läks keskel tõepoolest väga kvantitatiivseks. Kohe nii väga, et neist arvudest tehtud järeldused olid lugemisel kogu aeg kahtluse all. See pani mõtlema, et kui keegi väidab midagi tühja koha peale ja teeb seda veenvalt, on seda väga kerge tõe pähe võtta; teisalt kui esitatakse põhjalik kirjeldus sellest kuidas hüpoteesi kontrollitakse, tekib ikkagi kahtlus, kas tulemusi annab usaldada. Kvantitatiivses osas saavutatud järeldustele pöörasin lugedes ka vähem tähelepanu. Mul on teos PDF failina olemas, niiet kui on vaja midagi järele vaadata, on selleks alati võimalus. Kunagi tuleks üle vaadata ka raamatu lõpus esitatud nimekiri muutujatest, mida Mehrabian oma katsetes kasutas. Nimekiri on põhjalik ja kuigi tänapäeval enam ei ammenda suurt midagi, annab vähemasti aimu kuhu poole katsetes on tüüritud. Teistkordsel lugemisel tuleks silma peal hoida ka sellel, kuidas Mehrabian oma semantilist ruumi (kolme dimensiooni) igas peatükis kirjeldab - just nagu Lotman oma teksti ja kultuuriga, näis Mehrabian oma semantilist ruumi vastavalt vajadusele nipet-näpet muutvat. Nendest erinevustest võib midagi saada.
