Observation and Analysis of Human Nonverbal Communications

INTRODUCTION

When we think about human communication, we mostly think about talking because vocalization
is so pervasive in our everyday life, we tend to overlook then ongoing silent nonverbal
communication signals that surround us. These signals often support and reinforce our talking, but
they can also act as independent sources of communication. Smiles, for example, comprise a set
of nonverbal graded signals, running through a continuous set of changes from a simple closed-
mouth smile all the way to full open-mouth grim (Fig. 1 and 2). Human facial expression is
extremely essential for social communication. The non-verbal communication principally means
a communication between humans and animals through eye contact, gesture, facial expression,
body language etc.

People are using these sets of signals abundantly every day in many different situations and
recipients respond to these signals in meaningful ways. This exercise designed to help us explore
human nonverbal communications by observing smiles in a variety of contexts and by using our
observations to analyze the role of these signals may play in human interaction.

Following are the few human emotional nonverbal expressions that can be categorized into seven
basic types as mentioned below.

Figure 1: Seven basic human universal expressions (Matsumoto 2008)

 Figure 2: Closed-mouth smile. Lips are pulled back, mouth is closed.
No teeth are showing
Figure 3: Open-mouth smile. Lips are pulled and up, mouth is open,
Teeth are showing in full grin. There would be space between
upper and lower teeth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Smile Signal Form

Smiles form graded set. In all smiles, the lips are pulled back and somewhat compressed. They
may be pulled back very little or a lot; they may also be raised towards the ears. The mouth may
or may not be opened, and if open, it may be open slightly or widely (with a full range of variations
in between). Teeth may or may not be visible. Generally, the set runs from closed-mouth smile
(lips stretched somewhat, but not parted, no teeth showing) to wide-open grin (lips stretched back
and up, lips open, teeth showing), with variations between the two extremes, including the close
grin and the half-smile. To simplify data collection, student will concentrate on observing the
obvious extremes, the closed mouth smile and the wide-open grin.

Observation Procedure

Data for the exercise are to be gathered outside of the classroom. The smiles can be looked for
smiles in any situation, although some situations are better than others (because of the way the
signals work and the information they provide), and hints about good situation might be given or
discussed.

About 3, 5 or 10 smiles, each from different person, are to observed. This will actually not be
enough cases to develop a message hypothesis by himself/ herself. However, the cases will be
pooled together and discussed and this should definitely provide enough data for patterns to begin
to emerge in signal use and in the messages these signals may provide. To avoid sampling
problems, one should observe a different individual for each smile.

In this type of observational procedure, it is critical that a research student be an unobtrusive and
uninvolved observer. A research student needs to find a place to observe where he/ she himself/
herself is not playing any role in the interaction and will not be readily noticed by the people you
are observing.

Observations involve describing behaviors and the context in which they occur. Be sure to write
down observations not interpretations that is, describe rather than infer. Further, it is critical to
focus on the behaviors of the communicators before, during and after the signal is given; the
responses that occur and the context. Here is an example: two people are talking in low voice in
cafetoria. One then takes other person’s hand, gazes at the person, gives a wide-open grin (lips
stretched back and up, mouth open, teeth showing) while still holding the person’s hand and look
directly at the other person; the other person listens, talks and smiles as well. This description
illustrates the sort of detail necessary for analyzing a signal. Some sample descriptions are
provided in the sample data sheet (Table 1).

Data Sheet

When someone observes a smile, it is critical that he/ she writes down the following pieces of
data-
1. Form: Record what the signal looked like: lips closed or open, pulled back or not and generally
how far, teeth showing or not etc.
2. Communicator Behavior: Record what the communicator is doing, before, during and after
the signal. Be a specific and descriptive as possible of the smile, of when it occurred, and of
the variety of other behaviors with it, such as body, head and eye orientation. It is especially
important to keep track of when the smile actually occurred and of the behavior after smile
ends. Try to keep in mind the following kind of questions-
 Was there an interaction before, during or after smile?
 Did the communicator initiate interaction as they smiled or soon after, did someone else
or did interaction end?
 Was he or she looking at a person or away from the person before and during the smile?
 Was body facing the person or away?
 Did he or she continue to interact after the smile or leave the interaction?

3. Context: Record what else was going on besides the signal and communicator behavior.
 What were responses?
 Where did the interaction take place?
 What else was happening?
 Who was involved?
 Who else was there?
 Did the people know each other or not?
 What were the relationships?
 What were ages?

There is a sample description quoted in ‘observation procedure’ section for the kind of detail one
should be trying to include.

4. Duration: Researcher may also wish to time the interactions that occur, if possible (Table 1).
DISCUSSION

Variety of smiles noted by all research students, looking carefully at the communicator behavior
before, during and after the signal is given and at the contexts. This will uncover a pattern of usage
for this signal- that is, a pattern of communicator behavior that are associated with the signal. In
message/ meaning analysis, this pattern of communicator behavior will reflect what information a
recipient could predict from the signal and is referred to as the message. The Message Theory
holds that messages remain same for a given signal across many contexts; they are consistent
sources of information. The recipient responses, in context, are considered the meanings. Because
context and responses vary, meaning may change in different situations. The researcher will be
focusing on the message.

Small-Group Experiment

Signal Forms

We first need to define signals we are going to study. ‘Tongue showing’ and ‘mirroring and
synchrony’ are recommended because other observers have already defined and studied them and
in the case of tongue showing, have tested the message hypothesis which will enable us to compare
our data with a known set. Other signals already researched include ‘spacing behavior’ and ‘hand
gesture’.

Figure 4: Tongue showing behavior. Note that this person is trying to hold the phone with her
shoulder while stretching at an awkward angle to reach something. A social interruption
at this point might disrupt the delicate balance she is trying to maintain.
Figure 5: Mirror and Synchrony behavior. Note that both persons are leaning forward in their
chairs at about the same angle, both have their arms on the table and at similar angles,
and both of their heads at similar angles. They illustrate social agreement.

A. Tongue Showing (TS)

In the most common form of this display, an individual extends the tip of the tongue out between
lips and hold this in position for a brief period. Both the actual position of tongue and how much
of it shows are quite variable. While individual does not lick the lips, wiggle the tongue, or move
the tongue in and out (these are other sorts of tongue behavior). The tip may be held at the center
of the lips, or at either side of the mouth, at the corners (Fig 3). Variations include tongue inside
and pushed up against the inside of the cheeks (balled up, so it can be noticed but it is hidden).
B. Mirroring and Synchrony (MS)

This behavior is easier to observe during conversation. If individuals are in social agreement, they
will usually mirror one another’s behavior and synchrony their movement. If one person picks up
a cup and drinks, the other person will, too, within a few seconds; if one crosses the arms or legs,
the other will, too, within a few seconds; if one leans forward, so will the other (Fig 4).

Observation Procedure

Observation procedures are the same as those used for the previous activity. However, the research
student needs to gather more cases, enough for analyze without the rest of the class. Every one
needs to look at as many different situations as possible, sample the ranges of behaviors and
context, and gather a number of cases; 30-50 would be better than 10-20. We might predict that
mirroring and synchrony behaviors would be different between friends in a class vs. strangers. We
might test by stating explicit independent and dependent variables.

For example, we might examine slouching in the seat during class lecture as dependent variable
with respect to independent variables friends vs. nonfriends or strangers.

(a) One would predict that friends would be slouched at the same time more often than nonfriends
or

(b) that if a person begin to slouch, then his or her friends would also slouch within a few seconds,
but a nonfriend would not
or

(c) one might also predict that a class of students that was very attentive to a professor’s lecture
would all mirror one another in behavior and in timing of movements (perhaps mirror the professor
as well),

(d) whereas a class that was not interested in a lecture would show a less uniform, more haphazard
set of body posture and less synchrony in the timing of movements.

Data Sheet

If someone continue to pursue a message analysis, the data sheet should be the same as it was for
the smiling investigation. It is important to describe the form of display, the behavior of the
communicator before, during and after the signal and the context in which the signal interaction
takes place, including the responses of recipient. As per the need, certain behaviors could be timed
on the basis of hypothesis. The description will include information about whether or not
interaction occurs, what response occur etc. for later analysis.
HYPOTHESES AND PREDICTIONS

Large Group Experiment

Smile

A research hypothesis is a specific, clear, and testable proposition or predictive statement about
the possible outcome of a scientific research study based on a particular property of a population,
such as presumed differences between groups on a particular variable or relationships between
variables. Specifying the research hypotheses is one of the most important steps in planning a
scientific quantitative research study. A quantitative researcher usually states a ‘priori expectation’
about the results of the study in one or more research hypotheses before conducting the study,
because the design of the research study and the planned research design often is determined by
the stated hypotheses.

The biological hypothesis for this study that will be tested is smile function within friendly
interactions. To test this hypothesis, we can examine its predictions, such as the prediction that
someone who smiles is likely to interact, and the interaction is more likely to be friendly in nature
(not involving aggression) than unfriendly (involving aggression in some sense). Further, because
smiles from a continuous graded series, we can hypothesize that the size of smile (how far back
the lips are pulled and whether the mouth is open or closed) provides additional information about
the likelihood of initiating interaction and continuing an interaction once it is begun. This second
hypothesis predicts that although closed-mouth smiles correlate with a readiness to interact, an
individual giving this small-sized signal is less likely than individuals giving wide-open grins to
initiate further interaction or continue an interaction. Individuals with big smiles are more likely
to engage in interaction and actually to initiate further interaction and continue interaction.

Small Group Experiment

Tongue Showing, Mirroring and Synchrony

For these signals, student should for his/ her own hypothesis, on the basis of the information given
here, readings and pilot observations. (Tongue showing is often found in situations in which social
interaction can be troublesome. Mirroring and synchrony signals work one way in friendly groups
or situations and opposite way in unfriendly groups or situations.

DATA RECORDING AND ANALYSIS

Whole Class Experiment

The procedure for collecting and recording data is outlined in the ‘Observation and Procedure’
section. For analyzing data, the first step involves compiling data from the whole-class discussion.
Analysis of the whole-class data requires us to examine two alternative statistical hypotheses in
each case (note that these are different from the biological hypotheses of functions of smiling).
The first is traditionally called the statistical null hypothesis (HO). The first such hypothesis in
which, we are interested is that smiling of any kind is not associated with interaction. If this null
hypothesis is correct, smiling should be equally likely when there is no interaction and when an
interaction is occurring. The alternative hypothesis (HA) is that smiling is associated with
interaction. If HA is true, then smiling should be more common during interactions than when
individuals are not interacting. A second HO states that smiles are not associated with any
particular kind of interaction. If this HO is correct, smiling should be equally likely in both friendly
and unfriendly interactions. The HA is that is associated with friendly interaction rather than
unfriendly. If this HA is true, then smiling should be more common in friendly interaction than in
unfriendly one. A third HO is that two forms of opposite extremes in graded continuum of smiles,
closed-mouth and open-mouth, are not associated with different probabilities of initiating and
continuing interaction; the HA is that there are differences in interaction detail between two forms.

To test these hypotheses, raw data in Table 1 are examined for patterns of communicator behavior
in context. For example, when an individual gave closed smile, was she already in an interaction
or not, did she initiate an interaction when she smiled, did she continue or maintain interaction?
The raw data can be recast in an analysis sheet (Table 8.2). Data could be grouped by smile type
(independent variable) and examined for four main dependent variables; (i) interaction (was there
an interaction context, and did interaction occur in conjunction with the smile or not?) (ii) type of
interaction (friendly or unfriendly), (iii) initiation (did the signaler initiate further interaction
during or after the smile or not, or did someone else initiate further interaction or not?) and (iv)
continuation of interaction (did the signaler continue the interaction or not or did another
individual continue the interaction or not?). If class timed the durations of interaction, these results
should also be recorded. The duration provides a more objective measure of continuation of
interaction and thus offers another way to test the last hypothesis.

Mean generated for smiles during interactions may be tested with a binomial or sign test. However,
we should be aware that your sample may be biased toward interaction situations. It is difficult
to find smiles in noninteractive situations; by looking for smile situations, we may find ourselves
noticing only interaction situations because that is where smiles are most likely to occur. Means
generated by interaction type (friendly or unfriendly) may be tested with Chi square test for
goodness of fit. A Chi square test for independence may be used compare initiation of further
interaction by smile type. The same test can compare continuation of interaction by smiles type.
If duration data were collected, a Mann-Whitney U test may be employed to test differences in
duration of social interaction following closed-mouth vs. open-mouth smiles.
Table 1: Sample Data Sheet

Behavior
From
Before During After Context Duration
Looks down
Boy and girlfriend
Nods up & down Looks at hands as
Looks at friend She is talking and loudly
Closed Closed smile as looks at friend fiddles with napkin 1 min
She is talking complaining about
(lips back, not open She stops talking,
another friend
they sit in silence
Hurrying towards class Gives smile (lips back, not
Continues down hall In hall just before next
Closed Looks at approaching open) nods head and continues 10 sec
and into room class period
person walk at same rapid pace
Gives smile (small, closed) as My brother, dinner time,
Kid looks at mother Thanks mother, turns
Closed mom tells him they will is hungry, does not like 30 sec
Asks what is for dinner and leaves room
mushroom in dinner mushroom
Talks animatedly as
friend listens
Looks at friend Nods up & down (lips back, Discussing plan for dinner
Open Continues over 5 min > 6 min
She is talking open, teeth show) date
and observer moves
on
Stops and begin talking to
friend, friend stops, Two girlfriends meet in
Approaching friend in Says goodbye and
Open Engage in conversation as smile halfway not at a class 4 min
hallway moves on down hall
continues (lips back far, open, time
teeth show
Smile when talking, and then as
Gestures are slow
Two friends sitting listen to response, back and Continues until
Open conversation not rapid > 6 min
together in conversation forth (lips back far, grin, open, observer leaves
Do not seem in hurry
teeth)
Logic of Hypothesis Testing

Statistical inference is used most frequently to test hypotheses. When studying animal behavior,
we ask explanations for the patterns that we observe. We learn about the patterns by forming
hypotheses and testing specific predictions that are based on the hypotheses. For example, suppose
we are interested in finding out why male frog calls. We may hypothesize that one function of
calling by male frogs is to attract females. From this general biological hypothesis, we can deduce
specific, testable predictions. Some of these predictions may involve observations of undisturbed
animals, whereas others may involve field or laboratory experiments. For example, one prediction
of this hypothesis might be that among undisturbed animals in the field, more females will be
found near males that call than near males that did not call. Another prediction might be that fewer
females will be found near experimentally mutated males than near sham-operated unmutated
males (the control treatment).

To discuss validity of our biological hypothesis (male calling attracts females), we must determine
which (if any) of the predictions are correct. To test each prediction, we must collect data and
determine and determine whether the data fit the prediction. If all the predictions are correct, we
may conclude that the data support the hypothesis (Note that we can never say that the data prove
the hypothesis). If the data do not support one or more of the predictions, then we must conclude
that the data do not support the hypothesis, and thus we reject it. To understand the phenomenon,
we will have to form a new hypothesis or modify the old one and then start all over again by
designing new experiments and collecting new data to test the predictions of new data or revised
hypothesis.

How would we determine whether our data meet the predictions? How can we tell whether the
experimental data differ from the control data? For example, say that in testing the hypothesis that
male frog calling attracts females (study on 20 frogs). We can mute 10 frogs, so that they could
not call for a few weeks. We did a sham-operation on other 10 frogs (control) so that they
experienced surgery but were still able to call following the procedure. After we release the
animals, we could find that there were an average of 1.3 ± 0.24 female frogs within 5 meters of
muted males, whereas there were an average of 3.2 ± 1.4 females within 5 meters of unmuted
males.

From these results we might be tempted to say that there were more females around males that
could call than around those that could not. But remember that two groups under observation can
differ by chance only.

How can we tell whether the apparent difference between these two groups is due to real
differences rather than to chance alone?

How can we tell whether a mean of 1.3 females is really different from a mean of 3.4 females?

This is where statistics are used in testing hypotheses. Statistical inference test determines how
large the observed differences must be before we can reasonably sure that they represent a real
difference in the population from which only a few events are sampled. We can never be certain
two groups differ, but we can use inferential statistics to find how likely it is that the differences
represent real differences between groups rather than differences based on chance alone.

Ethical Use of Human Subjects

1. Planning Research

a) Psychologists design, conduct, and report research in accordance with recognized standards of
scientific competence and ethical research.
b) Psychologists plan their research so as to minimize the possibility that results will be
misleading.
c) In planning research, psychologists consider its ethical acceptability under the Ethics Code. If
an ethical issue is unclear, psychologists seek to resolve the issue through consultation with
institutional review boards, animal care and use committees, peer consultations, or other proper
mechanisms.
d) Researchers take reasonable steps to implement appropriate protections for the rights and
welfare of human participants, other persons affected by the research, and the welfare of animal
subjects.

2. Responsibility

a) Psychologists conduct research competently and with due concern for the dignity and welfare
of participants.
b) Researchers and assistants are permitted to perform only those tasks for which they are
appropriately trained and prepared.
c) Researchers are responsible for the ethical conduct of research.
3. Compliance with Law and Standards

a) Research should be conducted in a manner consistent with National and State Laws and
Regulations, as well as professional standards.

4. Institutional Approval

Researchers should obtain institutional approval for the conduct of research involving humans
and animals.

5. Research Responsibilities

Prior to conducting research (except the research involving only anonymous surveys,
naturalistic observations etc.) the researcher enters into an agreement with participants that
clarifies the nature of research and the responsibility of each party.

6. Deception in Research

Researchers do not conduct a study involving deception unless they have determined that the use
of deceptive techniques is justified by study’s scientific prospective.

#####
Table 2: Sample Data Analysis

Smile
Type Before During After Context Duration
(From)
Looks
down Boy and
Nods up & Looks at girlfriend
down hands as She is
Looks at Closed smile fiddles talking and
Closed friend as looks at with loudly 1 min
She is talking friend napkin complaining
(lips back, She stops about
not open talking, another
they sit in friend
silence
Gives smile
Hurrying (lips back,
Continues
towards class not open) In hall just
down hall
Closed Looks at nods head before next 10 sec
and into
approaching and continues class period
room
person walk at same
rapid pace
Gives smile
(small, Thanks My brother,
Kid looks at
closed) as mother, dinner time,
mother
Closed mom tells turns and is hungry, 30 sec
Asks what is
him they will leaves does not like
for dinner
mushroom in room mushroom
dinner
Talks
animatedly
Nods up &
Looks at as friend Discussing
down (lips
Open friend listens plan for > 6 min
back, open,
She is talking Continues dinner date
teeth show)
over 5 min
and
 observer
moves on
Stops and
begin talking
to friend,
Two
Approaching friend stops, Says
girlfriends
friend in Engage in goodbye
meet in
Open hallway conversation and moves 4 min
halfway not
as smile on down
at a class
continues hall
time
(lips back far,
open, teeth
show
Smile when
talking, and
Gestures are
then as listen
Two friends Continues slow
to response,
sitting until conversation
Open back and > 6 min
together in observer not rapid
forth (lips
conversation leaves Do not seem
back far,
in hurry
grin, open,
teeth)