January 25, 2025

In previous generations, tattooing was something done primarily by those, mostly males, in the military and only to a small extent (one or two relatively sma

In previous generations, tattooing was something done primarily by those, mostly males, in the military and only to a small extent (one or two relatively small tattoos, such as an anchor on a forearm). Also, women rarely were seen with tattoos and those were rarely visible to anyone who passed by. Today, tattooing has become a common occurrence and many people display large, ornate tattoos all over their bodies. The attitude toward these body adornments has changed dramatically. Explain:

1. To what do you attribute this change? How do age, gender, and culture relate to the perceptions and meanings we assign to tattoos?

2. In the video “Darwinian theory of beauty,” Denis Dutton states that “there are many differences among the arts, but there are also universal, cross-cultural aesthetic pleasures and values.” How would you connect Dutton’s statement to the stereotypes related to the use tattoos in your society? How does context affect the use of tattoos? What would be the effects of tattoos on interactions? Provide specific examples.

3. Your assigned textbook chapter explains the different “functions of clothing.” What function would you relate to tattoos ? Why?

Steps required for completing the discussion assignment

Support your points by making specific connections to the readings, videos, and/or recordings for the week. Specifically, include citations or statements from the video(s) and reading(s) covered in the current module.

VIDEO: https://www.ted.com/talks/denis_dutton_a_darwinian_theory_of_beauty

CH. 6 Slides attached

Nonverbal Communication

Chapter 6

The Effects of Physical Characteristics on Human Communication

Our Body: The Physical Attractiveness Stereotype

Physical attractiveness stereotype:

More than just attraction

Plethora of beliefs about associated traits (social/intellectual competence, mental health, virtue, dominance)

Attractive children are seen as: more intelligent, more socially adept, higher educational potential, more positive in their attitudes toward school

Cultural guidelines for attractiveness are internalized by age 6

Implications of High Attractiveness: Positive

Favored treatment, assumptions made

(ex: more lenient sentences in mock jury trials)

‘Benefit of the doubt’

Self-fulfilling prophecy: Own behavior/social skills are influenced by expectations (behavior) of others

Social inclusion

Opportunities for skill development

Nice treatment, respond in kind

Attractiveness Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Snyder et al. (1977)

Men had phone conversations with women

Men given (fake) photo of her: attractive vs. not

Asked to rate what she would be like

Conversation taped and analyzed

Men’s vocal (words and NVC) behavior matched their expectations

Women’s behavior followed in kind

Attractiveness Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (cont’d)

In more detail:

Stereotype (expectation) for ‘attractive’ partner were humorous, socially adept, sociable, poised (21 in all)

Men acted this way themselves

Women acted correspondingly on 17 of the 21 traits (e.g., enjoyment, animation, confidence)

Bottom line: When expecting woman to be attractive, man became more attractive and so did the woman

Implications of High Attractiveness: Positive cont’d

Are more attractive people actually different?

Yes, in some ways

Higher income, more educational attainment, better self-concept, less loneliness, less social anxiety, more popularity (esp. in females), more sexual experience, greater overall psychological well-being

No overall effect for self-esteem but attractiveness more correlated with self-esteem in women than men

Implications of High Attractiveness: Negative

Stereotype: shallow, vain, arrogant, stupid, asking for trouble, manipulative

Social ostracism, jealousy

Harsher punishment for con-artist crimes (simulation study)

More victim-blaming in rape cases

What is ‘Attractiveness’?

No fixed definition

Can refer to physical features only, or features AND expression or behavior (smell, voice)

Can refer to face, body, voice, movement style, cosmetic features (e.g., hairstyle, makeup)

Can refer to physical attraction (i.e., sexual) or non-sexual, generalized attraction (e.g., liking)

Measured by consensus (which is high)

Not just pertaining to women

Universality Question

Mass media produce homogenization of values

Generally, high consensus across perceivers between cultures, though not perfect

Heaviness valued more in developing countries; tiny feet in traditional China

Young infants look preferentially at more attractive faces: inborn preference?

Facial Averageness

The more average the face, the more attractive it is rated (done by morphing many faces together)

But, specific faces may still be especially attractive because they are more extreme on valued features

Very average faces can be nondistinctive (‘typical pretty girl’)

Biracial Features

Rhodes and colleagues found that White and Japanese participants perceived a mixed-race composite face to be more attractive than faces with either exaggerated White or Japanese features.

Facial Symmetry

More symmetrical faces are judged more attractive

However, specific asymmetrical faces might have idiosyncrasy credit (‘interesting’)

Attractiveness: Evolutionary Interpretations

These features signal health

Indeed, serious genetic or developmental defects do produce facial anomalies/asymmetries

People overgeneralize, associating health and therefore desirability to average and symmetrical faces

Spillover from an adaptive tendency to avoid the un-fit

Attractiveness: Evolutionary Interpretations (cont’d)

What features men and women are attracted to, short-term and other things being equal?

Women value more ‘masculinized’ features (thicker brows, thinner lips, squarer jaw) and bigger shoulder-waist ratio

Men value smaller waist-hip ratio, bigger breasts

Evolutionary psychology: these signal health and reproductive fitness

Attractiveness and Dating/Marriage

Matching hypothesis

The tendency to select a person similar to yourself in physical attractiveness—preferably a little above your self-perceived attractiveness

If mismatched, perceivers will judge the less attractive partner to have other attractive features such as making more money, being more successful in their occupations, and being more intelligent

Women often rank characteristics like ambition, social and economic status, dependability, and stability above physical features

Attractiveness and Jobs

Positives

May be an advantage in obtaining a job, obtaining a more prestigious job, and being hired at a higher salary

Negatives

Highly attractive job applicants might be evaluated negatively by same-gender evaluators who feel threatened by them

Attractive workers might worry that positive evaluations of their work are based on how they look rather than how they actually perform

Attractiveness and Persuading Others

Attractiveness of persuader counts

Especially when the persuasion involves a relatively short, one time request; when the first impression is critical; when involvement is low

Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo):

When people feel high involvement, they process the persuasive arguments.

But when involvement is low, they are influenced by superficial cues (such as attractiveness of speaker or model)

Attractiveness: Cautions About Overgeneralizing

In experiments, other factors often “held equal” but real life is not like that (other characteristics could trump attractiveness)

Stereotypes much stronger than actual differences

Moving Beyond Attractiveness – Important Qualifications

Interaction

Talk and nonverbal behavior can significantly affect perceptions

Mimicked verbal and nonverbal behavior during interactions can also lead to higher perceptions of attractiveness

Context

Moderate alcohol consumption leads to increase judgements of physical attractiveness

Time

Overall ratings of attractiveness for both men and women tend to decline in middle and old age; the decline is more severe for women

Johann Kaspar Lavater’s “Physiognomy”

Swiss clergyman, wrote highly influential book in 1772, translated into many languages

Physiognomy (silent ‘g’): “Science” of reading character from physical appearance

Wanted to be scientific; excellent observer

Physiognomy (cont’d)

“Do we not daily judge the sky by its physiognomy?”

“No food, not a glass of wine, or beer, or cup of coffee comes to the table that is not judged by its physiognomy.”

“What knowledge is there that is not founded on the exterior?”

Physiognomy (cont’d)

Recognized difference between form and expression but often mixed them up

Overlooked need for validity data

Said only someone who is “well formed” could be a good physiognomist

Irresponsible, sexist, racist, even nutty….but because of self-fulfilling prophecies there could be some truth that is worth uncovering

Physiognomy (cont’d)

On women: Traits of vanity and pride predominate in face—these traits are rarely in forehead, mostly in sides of nostrils, wrinkles of nose and cheeks particularly

On woman’s hairy warts on chin: These signal industriousness and a good housewife; also amorous to the point of frenzy; talks a lot

On noses: Noses which easily turn up in wrinkles are seldom found in truly good men, while those which will scarcely wrinkle, even with an effort, are in men who are consummately wicked

Physiognomy (cont’d)

On lips: Disproportion between the upper and lower lip is a sign of folly or wickedness; very large lips always denote a gross, sensual, sometimes stupid or wicked man

On chins: Broad, thick chin—only found in rude, harsh, proud, and violent persons

On mouths: Person is stupid if the mouth is very wide

On foreheads: Stupid person has forehead shorter than the nose

(Careful measurements would be made of a person’s face, making the pseudo-science seem like science)

Modern Evidence for Facial Stereotypes

Thick brows – rated as aggressive

Thick lips – rated as warm

Thin face – rated as suspicious

Many ‘snap judgments’ made about people based on facial (or bodily) physiognomy

Babyfaced-ness

Babyfaced features: big eyes, small chin, tall forehead, fat cheeks, small nose

People with these characteristics (of ALL ages) are perceived as ‘babyfaced’—versus ‘maturefaced’

Stereotype: Babyfaced are naïve, warm, honest, weak compared to maturefaced

Implications of Babyfaced-ness

Simulation study: babyfaced person more convicted of crime of negligence, maturefaced person more convicted of crime of intention

Babyfaced children’s misdeeds assumed to be less intentional

Implications of Babyfaced-ness (cont’d)

Babyfaced children assigned fewer chores by parents

Among delinquent boys, babyfaced ones got less maternal supervision

Implications of Babyfaced-ness (cont’d)

Babyfaced children spoken to in babytalk

‘Lost resume’ mailed more by a stranger if belonged to babyfaced (vs. maturefaced) applicant in both U.S. and Kenya

Implications of Babyfaced-ness (cont’d)

Rule and Ambady (2008)

Facial photographs of 50 CEOs of top and bottom Fortune 500 companies

Rated for leadership potential and for power (dominant, competent, facial maturity)

Controlling for age and attractiveness, both these ratings significantly correlated with company’s profits

Implications of Babyfaced-ness (cont’d)

Judgments of competence, dominance, and facial maturity in candidates’ faces predict vote differentials in U.S. elections (The babyface is linked to lower ratings of perceived political competence)

Cultural difference: not true in Japan. Rather, judgments of likeability and trustworthiness in candidates’ faces predict election outcomes

Babyfaced-ness Theory (Zebrowitz)

People overgeneralize the actual traits of babies, perceiving anyone with babyish features to have the traits of babies (weaker, more submissive, more intellectually naïve)

Same brain region activated when viewing babies and babyfaced adults

Evolutionary theory interpretation: Spillover from an adaptive response to babies’ needs

Face Recognition

Face recognition = knowing you’ve seen a face before

Relevant to eye-witness events, everyday life

Studied experimentally, not as an individual skill

Recognizing Faces and Own-Race Advantage

Predominant finding: Own-race advantage

Own-race advantage holds for any groups (White-Black, Black-White, White-Asian, Asian-White)

Several mechanisms proposed

Social: Negative attitudes towards other race proposed but not supported

Experiential: Greater exposure to own race alters perceptual and cognitive factors

Recognizing Faces and Own-Race Advantage (cont’d)

Goldinger et al. (2009) used White-Asian and Asian-White tasks

When viewing other-race faces people used less effective information gathering (eye tracking):

Fewer fixations; longer fixations; less looking at unique features; looking at eyes and hair for own race, looking at nose and mouth for other race; trailing off of effort especially in low-accurate viewers

Supports theory that own-race bias is related to perceptual processing, not a retrieval bias

Recognizing Faces and Own-Race Advantage (cont’d)

More practice with own race  learning to make more fine-grained distinctions

People make more categorical and less individuated analysis of other-race faces

Other-race face processing is therefore shallow and less effortful (paradoxically—product of its being more difficult)

Also could be a retrieval problem

Body Shape

Endomorph – soft, round

Stereotypes: more talkative, warmhearted, good natured, dependent, trusting

Mesomorph – bony, muscular, athletic

Stereotypes: more masculine, adventurous, younger, taller, mature in behavior, self-reliant

Ectomorph – tall, thin, fragile

Stereotypes: younger, ambitious, suspicious, tense, less masculine, more stubborn, more pessimistic, quieter

Some evidence exists for validity of somatic types (likely via self- and other-expectations)

Body Shape: Weight Stigma

Negative reactions to heavy people

A relatively ‘acceptable’ stigma

All ages

Heavier people less likely to marry, more likely to have a lower income

Less likely to go to college in general, and to more prestigious colleges – why?

Parents less likely to support them in college, especially if female (3 studies; Crandall, 1991)

Height

Important to children, certain jobs, in personal ads

Stereotypes different for men and women

Men: Taller is preferred to shorter

Taller presidential candidates have typically won since 1900; candidates hide shortness if they can

Taller men are considered more attractive

High status man perceived as taller (lecturer study)

Taller men chosen as applicants, advance to leadership, make more money

Taller men report having had more intercourse than shorter men

Body Image

Body imagine is one of the first aspects of self-perceptions that individuals form

More extreme in women, who prefer bodies that are smaller than normal, but busts larger than normal

Both men and women often misjudge what body type is the most appealing to others

Women think men prefer a thinner woman than men actually report

Men think women want a heavier man than women actually report

Body Color

Prejudice based on darker skin color, not just between groups but also within

Lighter-skinned Latinos make $5,000 more per year than darker-skinned Latinos

Education test-score gap between darker and lighter toned African Americans

Darker African Americans get more death penalties than lighter, for equivalent crimes

Obama ad created more positive reaction in Whites when African American family in scene had lighter skin

Body Odor

Smells help identify others

Spouses are able to identify the odors of their partners at higher than chance levels, as were mothers in identifying the odors of their infants

Smells play a role in mating and sexual behaviors

Men appear to be sexually responsive to the odors women produce when they are sexually aroused during their luteal phase

Women rate single men’s body odor as stronger than that of partnered men’s, presumably because single men have higher levels of testosterone in them

Hair

Most negative reactions against long hair are directed toward males. People may have negative reactions toward women with short hair.

Other body hair also

Clothes and Artifacts

People believe clothes matter, carry information

Less ambiguity about the intentionality issue

First impressions: Important

Stereotyping (bad if you don’t want it)(Hoodie)

Identity projection (personal and social identity)

Clothing influences receipt of help, obedience (Bickman, Milgrim)

Rules and norms

School uniforms; job uniforms

Conformity to group (avoid rejection, find acceptance)

Conform to situational prescriptions/proscriptions

Functions/Signals of Clothing

Decoration, protection, sexual attraction, self-assertion, group identification, bonding, reveal attitudes and ideology, mood reflection/creation, authority/status display, role display, personality, social integration (shows a person knows/follows the ‘rules’ of dress)

Clothing and Personality

Rosenfeld and Plax’s clothing questionnaire – measured values

Clothing consciousness, Exhibitionism, Practicality, Fashion orientation

Had many correlates in large sample

Other research:

Chic, stylish, colorful: Narcissists and extraverts

Preference for sexy, revealing clothes near time of ovulation: Sexually unrestricted women

Clothing and Personality (cont’d)

Feinberg et al. (1992)

(1) Identified 20 personality traits that might be conveyed by clothing

(2) Female participants brought outfit to lab that they thought reflected their personality

(3) Different women modeled the participants’ outfits for a photograph

(4) Different group guessed the personality of the person who owned the outfit

(5) Original participants self-rated their personality

Clothing and Personality (cont’d)

Feinberg’s results – cont’d

Group that guessed participants’ personality based on clothing were significantly accurate for the traits of:

Informal, lazy, immature, uncultured, conforming, ungracious, closed-minded

There was nearly significant accuracy for:

Unemotional, cold, phony, intuitive, and weak

image2.png

NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN HUMAN INTERACTION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

±± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±

NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN HUMAN INTERACTION

E I G H T H

E D I T I O N

Mark L. Knapp The University of Texas at Austin

Judith A. Hall Northeastern University

Terrence G. Horgan University of Michigan, Flint

Australia • Brazil • Japan • Korea • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom • United States

This is an electronic version of the print textbook. Due to electronic rights restrictions, some third party content may be suppressed. Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. The publisher reserves the right to

remove content from this title at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. For valuable information on pricing, previous editions, changes to current editions, and alternate formats, please visit www.cengage.com/highered to search by

ISBN#, author, title, or keyword for materials in your areas of interest.

www.cengage.com/highered

Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction, Eighth Edition Mark L. Knapp, Judith A. Hall and Terrence G. Horgan

Publisher: Monica Eckman

Development Editor: Daisuke Yasutake

Editorial Assistant: Colin Solan

Media Editor: Jessica Badiner

Brand Manager: Ben Rivera

Marketing Development Manager: Kara Kindstrom

Rights Acquisitions Specialist: Alexandra Ricciardi

Manufacturing Planner: Doug Bertke

Art and Design Direction, Production Management, and Composition: PreMediaGlobal

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored, or used in any form or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web distribution, information networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

For product information and technology assistance, contact us at Cengage Learning Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706

For permission to use material from this text or product, submit all requests online at www.cengage.com/permissions

Further permissions questions can be e-mailed to [email protected]

Library of Congress Control Number:

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.

In previous generations, tattooing was something done primarily by those, mostly males, in the military and only to a small extent (one or two relatively sma

image2.png

Related Posts

What specific actions can you take as an APN to assist in attaining two or more of the four goals in the plan?? ? What aspects of health information

Identify the ratio of corrective versus affirming statements.?? Describe one aspect of the feedback that went well.? Describe one aspect of the feedba

You are required to post items to the course online discussion forum that add value to the topic that is covered for the week, linking theory (from class rea

Leave a Reply Cancel reply