http://psp.sagepub.com
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://psp.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/33/12/1675
Nonverbal Self-Accuracy in
Interpersonal Interaction
Judith A. Hall
Northeastern University
Nora A. Murphy
Brandeis University
Marianne Schmid Mast
University of Neuchtel
Four studies measure participants accuracy in remembering, without forewarning, their own nonverbal behavior
after an interpersonal interaction. Self-accuracy for smiling, nodding, gazing, hand gesturing, and self-touching is
scored by comparing the participants recollections with
coding based on videotape. Self-accuracy is above chance
and of modest magnitude on average. Self-accuracy is
greatest for smiling; intermediate for nodding, gazing, and
gesturing; and lowest for self-touching. It is higher when
participants focus attention away from the self (learning
as much as possible about the partner, rearranging the furniture in the room, evaluating the partner, smiling and
gazing at the partner) than when participants are more
self-focused (getting acquainted, trying to make a good
impression on the partner, being evaluated by the partner,
engaging in more self-touching). The contributions of cognitive demand and affective state are discussed.
Keywords:
1675
1676
1677
1678
Participants
The sample consisted of 157 students (53 males, 104
females). An additional 157 participants served as interaction partners, but their nonverbal self-accuracy was
not measured.
Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to be the participant or the partner and were randomly assigned to
one of the focus of attention conditions described previously. They spent 5 min interacting while being videotaped by a camera in plain sight, after which they were
separated and given self-ratings of how much they
remembered having smiled, gazed, nodded, used hand
gestures, and touched themselves during the interaction
(1 = hardly ever to 9 = a great deal for each behavior),
along with some unrelated questionnaires. Participants
also rated their affective experience on several scales;
for present purposes, we analyzed the self-rating of nervousness, which was measured on a 9-point scale.
1679
STUDY 2
STUDY 3
Method
Method
Participants
Participants were 180 students (58 males, 122
females).
Participants
Participants in Study 3 were 180 students (54 males,
126 females).
Role Manipulation
The roles were intended to create differences (or not)
in perceived status or power within the dyad. The roles
were owner or prospective assistant in a mock art
gallery (unequal) or co-owners of the gallery (equal). A
gift certificate to a local music store was offered to the
assistants based on the favorability of the owners evaluation of them. See Hall, Horgan, and Carter (2002) for
manipulation checks.
Procedure
Participants roles in the dyads were randomly
assigned and they interacted in plain view of a video
Procedure
Study 3 had the same design as Study 2 except that
hand gestures were not coded from the videotape; therefore, nonverbal self-accuracy was based on four rather
than five behaviors. See Hall et al. (2002) for manipulation checks.
1680
STUDY 4
Method
Participants
The sample for Study 4 consisted of 91 students (22
males, 69 females).
Procedure
Dyads spent 15 min working together to design an
educational video on the benefits of recycling, while
being videotaped by a camera in plain sight, as explained
further in Hall, Murphy, and Carney (2006). In each
dyad, 1 participant was randomly assigned to work
under a reward contingency related to evaluation of his
or her performance. For the present study, we calculated
nonverbal self-accuracy only for the partner of this
person because the partner was not working for a
reward and was not aware that the first person was eligible for a reward. Following the videotaped interaction,
dyad members were separated to complete the same selfratings of their nonverbal behavior as in the previous
studies, as well as some unrelated questionnaires.
RESULTS
Focus of Attention
Overall Nonverbal Self-Accuracy and Differences
Between Behaviors
The group accuracy correlations (Table 1) show that
self-accuracy was significantly greater than zero for all
five behaviors, with the average level of accuracy over
all five behaviors being r = .25. However, there were differences among behaviors, with smiling showing the
1681
Group
Smiling
Study 1
Study 2
High power
Equal power
Low power
Study 3
High power
Equal power
Low power
Study 4
Unweighted mean
Weighted mean
Combined Z
.44***
.52***
.44**
.27*
.30*
.33
.42***
.43***
.40a,b,c,d
.40
8.95***
Gazing
Nodding
Hand Gestures
Self-Touching
.51***
.21**
.24**
.12
.26*
.16
.14
.41***
.44*
.01
.28*
.10
.30*
.32**
.22
.37*
.37**
.26
.38**
.13
.24a
.31
5.96***
.25
.16
.12
.17
.21b
.21
4.73***
.31**
.24c
.26
4.89***
.06
.05
.04
.25*
.18d
.18
4.03***
NOTE: The dash indicates that the behavior was not measured.
a. F(1, 7) = 3.93, p < .10 for comparison of these two mean correlations (ANOVA 1; see text).
b. F(1, 7) = 20.20, p < .01 for comparison of these two mean correlations (ANOVA 1; see text).
c. F(1, 4) = 6.17, p < .10 for comparison of these two mean correlations (ANOVA 2; see text).
d. F(1, 7) = 19.63, p < .01 for comparison of these two mean correlations (ANOVA 1; see text).
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
TABLE 2:
Group
Study 1
Study 2
High power
Equal power
Low power
Study 3
High power
Equal power
Low power
Study 4
Mean r
SD
One-Sample t Test
.36
.68
157
t(149) = 6.83***
.43
.29
.24
.64
.66
.74
59
59
60
t(58) = 5.51***
t(58) = 3.58***
t(59) = 2.57**
.40
.16
.11
.27
.99
.91
.90
.81
57
58
56
90
t(56)
t(57)
t(55)
t(90)
=
=
=
=
3.18**
1.38, ns
.94, ns
3.66***
NOTE. In all studies, individual profile correlations (r) were transformed to Fishers z before averaging, and the average was returned to the
Pearson r metric for presentation.
**p < .01. ***p < .001.
1682
TABLE 3:
Group
Study 1
Study 2
High power
Equal power
Low power
Study 3
High power
Equal power
Low power
Study 4
Unweighted mean
Weighted mean
Combined Z
Smiling
Gazing
Self-Touching
.18*
.17*
.09
.37**
.18
.10
.34**
.12
.26*
.17
.02
.24
.04
.15
.14
3.40***
.25
.08
.26
.19
.18
.16
4.15***
.16
.05
.04
.09
.47***
.25
.27**
.19
.19
4.31***
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Though social psychologists have expressed interest
in how aware people are of their behavior, little
research has been done on this question with respect to
nonverbal behavior. In four studies (containing eight
groups of participants), we measured accuracy of
remembering ones nonverbal behavior immediately
after engaging in an interaction. Without advance warning, participants rated how much of each behavior they
had displayed, and nonverbal self-accuracy was scored
by comparing these ratings with how much they actually
displayed the same behaviors, as determined by videotape coding. Two methods for calculating nonverbal
self-accuracy were used, one describing self-accuracy for
the whole group of participants and one describing selfaccuracy for individual participants.
1683
1684
task, even more difficult than remembering ones own nonverbal behavior. The mean correlation between the two kinds of accuracy was .11,
which was significantly greater than zero (combined Z = 2.81, p < .01).
This positive correlation between self-accuracy and other accuracy
means that, on average, participants did not trade off memory for their
own behavior against memory for the partners behavior.
REFERENCES
NOTES
1. Some other studies have been concerned with self-accuracy but
are not similar enough to our studies to permit a direct comparison.
Kolar, Funder, and Colvin (1996) gathered 41 self-reported trait descriptions, 2 of which were purely nonverbal (facial/gestural expressiveness, and behaves and acts quickly). These self-descriptions positively
predicted observers coding of the same behaviors based on videotaped interaction. However, Kolar et al. asked participants about
their general behavior, not about how they had acted during their
videotaped interaction. Other studies have addressed accuracy in discerning what kind of impression one is making on others, but this skill
may entail accuracy of reading other people more than it entails accuracy of self-perception (see review in DePaulo , Kenny, Hoover,
Webb, & Oliver, 1987; also, Kenny & DePaulo, 1993).
2. When a profile correlation is calculated across rated items within
an individual participant, the null or guessing level may not be zero
but rather some positive value reflecting the general accuracy of stereotypes about whatever trait or quality is being rated (Hall , Bernieri, &
Carney 2005). To examine this possibility, in Studies 1 and 4 we recalculated the individual profile correlation by correlating a participants
self-ratings with a randomly picked participant who was not the actual
partner. In both studies, the new average profile correlation was r = .05
and the t tests against this value were still significant. Stereotype accuracy (Colvin & Bundick, 2001; Funder, 2001) is thus not an issue for
individual profile correlations reflecting nonverbal self-accuracy.
3. Because the present studies had an average femalemale ratio of
70:30, it is fair to ask whether our comparisons of mens and womens
self-accuracy were significantly undermined by the loss of statistical
power associated with unequal sample sizes. According to Rosenthal
and Rosnow (1984), a 70:30 split produces a t that is 8% smaller than
if it had been calculated with a 50:50 split. Considering how small our
obtained ts were, and considering that we examined the effects over
four studies, we believe the unequal sample sizes did not obscure the
presence of sex differences.
4. There was also a Condition Sex interaction, F(3, 142) = 3.36,
p = .02, showing that the experimental conditions affected men and
women differently. Because we had no predictions for this effect and
the differences were difficult to interpret, no further discussion of this
effect is provided. Also, we conducted the ANOVA without having
sex in the model and found that the self-focus effect remained: condition effect, F(3, 146) = 2.84, p < .05; contrast between the two less
and the two more self-focused conditions, F(1, 146) = 5.11, p < .05.
5. Unlike in Studies 1 and 4 where we analyzed only 1 participant
from each dyad, in Studies 2 and 3 we included both participants, as
follows. The high- and low-power participants were analyzed separately and treated as different groups in all analyses, thus ensuring
that within each group all observations were independent. However,
the high- and low-power groups were not independent of each other
because they had been partners. For the group correlations, the equalpower partners were, for the same reason, randomly assigned to separate groups for analysis; the correlations were calculated separately
for these two groups and then averaged. For the individual profile correlations, the equal-power participants were combined into one
pooled group. Any errors of nonindependence entailed by these
methodological decisions were minor because nonverbal self-accuracy
was only minimally correlated between dyad members (correlations =
.14 to .14, all ns).
6. In all four studies we also calculated the individual profile correlation for accuracy of remembering the partners behavior (other accuracy) in analogous fashion to the calculation of self-accuracy. The mean
for other accuracy was r = .20, which was significantly lower than the
mean of r = .28 found for self-accuracy (combined Z = 2.27, p < .05).
Thus, remembering the partners nonverbal behavior is also a difficult
1685
Rosenthal, R., & DePaulo, B. M. (1979). Sex differences in eavesdropping on nonverbal cues. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37, 273-285.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom:
Teacher expectation and pupils intellectual development. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Essentials of behavioral
research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1978). Interpersonal expectancy
effects: The first 345 studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1,
377-415.
Ross, M., McFarland, C., Conway, M., & Zanna, M. P. (1983).
Reciprocal relation between attitudes and behavior recall:
Committing people to newly formed attitudes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 257-267.
Ruch, W. (1995). Will the real relationship between facial expression
and affective experience please stand up: The case of exhilaration.
Cognition and Emotion, 9, 33-58.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept,
social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA:
Brookes/Cole.
Schmid Mast, M., & Hall, J. A. (2006). Womens advantage at
remembering others appearance: A systematic look at the why
and when of a gender difference. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32, 353-364.
Schroeder, J. E. (1995). Self-concept, social anxiety, and interpersonal
perception skills. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 955-958.
Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self evaluation: To thine own
self be good, to thine own self be sure, to thine own self be true,
and to thine own self be better. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 209-269). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Snyder, M. (1974). Selfmonitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.
Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and
interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 656-666.
Spitz, H. H. (1997). Nonconscious movements: From mystical messages to facilitated communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Tafarodi, R., Tam, J., & Milne, A. B. (2001). Selective memory and
the persistence of paradoxical self-esteem. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1179-1189.
Tice, D. M., Butler, J. L., Muraven, M. B., & Stillwell, A. M. (1995).
When modesty prevails: Differential favorability of self-presentation
to friends and strangers. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 69, 1120-1138.
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1985). A theory of action identification. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think
theyre doing? Action identification and human behavior.
Psychological Review, 94, 3-15.
Vogt, E. Z., & Hyman, R. (2000). Water witching U.S.A. (2nd ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vorauer, J. D., & Miller, D. T. (1997). Failure to recognize the effect
of implicit social influence on the presentation of self. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 281-295.
Vrij, A. (1994). The impact of information and setting on detection of
deception by police detectives. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18,
117-136.
Wegner, D. M. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Wegner, D. M. (2003). The minds best trick: How we experience
conscious will. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 65-69.
Woodall, W. G., & Burgoon, J. K. (1981). The effects of nonverbal
synchrony on message comprehension and persuasiveness. Journal
of Nonverbal Behavior, 5, 207-223.
Zuckerman, M., Larrance, D. T., Spiegel, N. H., & Klorman, R.
(1981). Controlling nonverbal displays: Facial expressions and tone
of voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 506-524.
Received December 12, 2006
Revision accepted May 9, 2007