Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation.

Abstract

Because of special characteristics of nonverbal behaviors (e.g., they can be difficult to suppress, they are more accessible to the people who observe them than to the people who produce them), the intention to produce a particular nonverbal expression for self-presentational purposes cannot always be successfully translated into the actual production of that expression. The literatures on people's skills at using their nonverbal behaviors to feign internal states and to deceive are reviewed as they pertain to the question of whether people can overcome the many constraints on the translation of their intentions into expressions. The issue of whether people's deliberate attempts to regulate their nonverbal behaviors can be detected by others is also considered.

Nonverbal self-accuracy in interpersonal interaction

“…Specifically, attention to the self (as measured by postexperimental listing of what happened during an interaction) was directed much more to unobservable events such as emotions than to observable events such as nonverbal behaviors, whereas attention to the other person showed the opposite pattern-more attention to observable than unobservable events. This is consistent with DePaulo's (1992) observation that nonverbal cues are "more accessible to the people who are observing them than to the people who are producing them" (p. 234). Lack of self-accuracy could therefore stem both from preoccupation with other information in the self (e.g., own subjective experience) and from relative lack of visual availability of one's own behavior.…”

“…This prediction is consistent with research on the effect of cognitive load on memory for how one answered questions in an interview (Tice, Butler, Muraven, & Stillwell, 1995). Deception research also implicates higher self-focus as an impairing factor in successful lying, as would-be deceivers become less successful in deceiving when their motivation to succeed in deceiving is high (and they are presumably paying extra attention to their own behavior; DePaulo, 1992). Also relevant is Patterson and Stockbridge's (1998) study showing a negative impact of cognitive load on nonverbal cue processing.…”

Proposing Instrument to Measure Impression Management among Flood Victims

“…Impression management involves manipulating nonverbal cues such as facial expressions, smiling, eye contact, physical proximity and touching [30]. Montagliani and Giacalone (1998) emphasized the need for both verbal and nonverbalbehavioral cues [31].…”

Using Analysis of Speech and Linguistics to Characterize Uncertainty in Radiology Reporting

“…In addition to measuring and analyzing periodic fluctuations in stress specific to context and individual user baseline, speech analysis could also be used to identify specific speech patterns associated with increased uncertainty such as such as hesitations in speech, increased frequency of specific words (e.g., ums and uhs), and longer latency periods [25]. The end result would be a comprehensive speech analysis system which identifies uncertainty through language (i.e., report content), speech patterns, and enduser-specific voice stress variations.…”