ChapterPDF Available

Gender and Nonverbal Behavior

January 2016

In book: APA Handbook of Nonverbal Communication (pp.139-161)
Chapter: 6
Publisher: American Psychological Association
Editors: David Matsumoto, Hyisung C. Hwang, Mark G. Frank

Authors:

New York University Abu Dhabi

It is widely believed that women and men are fundamentally different from each other. Indeed, the belief that males and females possess different traits, abilities, and inclinations pervades all age groups, all time periods, and all cultures (Kite, Deaux, & Haines, 2008). Such beliefs, better described as stereotypes, have also been found to be highly resistant to change (Dodge, Gilroy, & Fenzel, 1995; Heilman, 2001). Two dimensions, communality and agency, capture a multitude of perceived differences (Bakan, 1966; Kite et al., 2008). Women are consistently characterized as having a consistent predisposition to be communal—to care for and attend to the wellbeing of others. The typical woman is thought to be kind, caring, sensitive, empathic, and emotional. However, men are believed to be primarily agentic and instrumental. The characteristic male is felt to be independent, confident, decisive, aggressive, and strong (Kite et al., 2008). It is not surprising then that people believe that women and men show distinctive patterns of nonverbal behavior. For example, Briton and Hall (1995) found that people think that women are more nonverbally expressive and responsive than are men. Women are also thought to be better at sending and deciphering nonverbal messages. In contrast, males are believed to be louder and more interruptive and to show more restless body movements and dysfluent vocal behaviors, such as inserting filled and unfilled pauses while speaking. The issue here, as is the case with stereotypes more generally, has to do with the validity or accuracy of such beliefs. This chapter addresses just that question and two related ones—namely, what gender dimension best describes differences that are examined, and if sex differences are found, to what are they to be attributed? There is more to gender beliefs than simple assumptions such as the idea that women express more positive emotion than men (Shields, 1987). Not only are men and women believed to have different repertoires of nonverbal behavior, some nonverbal behaviors are understood a priori to be feminine or masculine. Therefore, crying—which is believed to be something that women do more than men (Vingerhoets & Scheirs, 2000)—denotes femininity in the crier (sometimes called effeminacy if the crier happens to be male). This pregendering of nonverbal behavior reinforces ideas about who (men or women) should exhibit which behaviors, and it impinges on what behaviors men and women choose to display when motivated to avoid being perceived as gender deviant. In fact, engaging in the appropriate nonverbal gender repertoire (and avoiding cross-gender behavior) is part of what some scholars refer to as “doing gender” well (West & Zimmerman, 1987). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved)

Content uploaded by Andrea C Vial

Content may be subject to copyright.

139

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14669-006

APA Handbook of Nonverbal Communication, D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang, and M. G. Frank (Editors-in-Chief)

ChaPter 6

gEndEr And nOnvErbAl

bEHAvIOr

Marianne LaFrance and Andrea C. Vial

It is widely believed that women and men are fun-

damentally different from each other. Indeed, the

belief that males and females possess different traits,

abilities, and inclinations pervades all age groups,

all time periods, and all cultures (Kite, Deaux, &

Haines, 2008). Such beliefs, better described as ste-

reotypes, have also been found to be highly resistant

to change (Dodge, Gilroy, & Fenzel, 1995; Heilman,

2001). Two dimensions, communality and agency,

capture a multitude of perceived differences (Bakan,

1966; Kite et al., 2008). Women are consistently

characterized as having a consistent predisposition

to be communal—to care for and attend to the well-

being of others. The typical woman is thought to

be kind, caring, sensitive, empathic, and emotional.

However, men are believed to be primarily agentic

and instrumental. The characteristic male is felt to

be independent, conﬁdent, decisive, aggressive, and

strong (Kite et al., 2008).

It is not surprising then that people believe that

women and men show distinctive patterns of non-

verbal behavior. For example, Briton and Hall (1995)

found that people think that women are more non-

verbally expressive and responsive than are men.

Women are also thought to be better at sending and

deciphering nonverbal messages. In contrast, males

are believed to be louder and more interruptive and

to show more restless body movements and dysﬂu-

ent vocal behaviors, such as inserting ﬁlled and

unﬁlled pauses while speaking. The issue here, as is

the case with stereotypes more generally, has to do

with the validity or accuracy of such beliefs. This

chapter addresses just that question and two related

ones—namely, what gender dimension best describes

differences that are examined, and if sex differences

are found, to what are they to be attributed?

There is more to gender beliefs than simple

assumptions such as the idea that women express

more positive emotion than men (Shields, 1987).

Not only are men and women believed to have

different repertoires of nonverbal behavior, some

nonverbal behaviors are understood a priori to be

feminine or masculine. Therefore, crying—which

is believed to be something that women do more

than men (Vingerhoets & Scheirs, 2000)—denotes

femininity in the crier (sometimes called effeminacy

if the crier happens to be male). This pregendering

of nonverbal behavior reinforces ideas about who

(men or women) should exhibit which behaviors,

and it impinges on what behaviors men and women

choose to display when motivated to avoid being

perceived as gender deviant. In fact, engaging in the

appropriate nonverbal gender repertoire (and avoid-

ing cross-gender behavior) is part of what some

scholars refer to as “doing gender” well (West &

Zimmerman, 1987).

DECONSTRUCTING GENDER

A substantial body of empirical work has addressed

whether and to what degree women and men differ

in their nonverbal behavior. Nonetheless, many stud-

ies have been primarily descriptive of sex differences

and only explanatory, if at all, after the fact. Although

some researchers have contributed sophisticated and

nuanced examinations of individual variation and

LaFrance and Vial

140

causal factors affecting gendered aspects of nonverbal

behavior, we believe this extensive literature would

beneﬁt from ﬁrst considering the relatively unex-

plored territory that becomes illuminated by decon-

structing what goes into gender in the ﬁrst place.

By deconstructing or problematizing gender, we

mean expanding the typical binary category described

by biological sex (i.e., male and female) and focus-

ing instead on the multiple ways that gender can be

understood. For example, one line of work argues

that a key dimension known as sex-role identiﬁca-

tion or psychological gender (Bem, 1977) reﬂects the

degree to which women and men identify with char-

acteristics that society typically assigns to females and

males. Regarding nonverbal behavior, the question

then converts to whether a person’s (male or female)

degree of identiﬁcation with feminine and masculine

traits is reﬂected in his or her nonverbal behavior. An

example of the standard question is whether women

smile more than men. A sex-role identiﬁcation ques-

tion asks, instead, whether people who

score high in femininity smile more than those who

score low in femininity and/or more than people

who score high in masculinity regardless of their sex.

A constrained sex-role identiﬁcation (masculine

sex-typed or feminine sex-typed) theoretically moti-

vates men and women, respectively, to self-present

in gender-normative ways and to avoid behavior that

is considered more characteristic of the opposite

sex (Bem, 1977). Androgynous men and women, in

contrast, who identify equally with masculine and

feminine characteristics are theoretically more ﬂex-

ible and less consistent in their nonverbal behavior

because they have larger repertoire from which to

draw, and thus they may freely engage in nonverbal

behavior that is seen as stereotypical of the other

sex if the situation calls for it (M. LaFrance &

Carmen, 1980). Thus, studies exploring the inter-

actions between biological sex and psychological

gender arguably offer an expanded framework for

understanding the relationship between gender and

nonverbal behavior. A sole focus on biological sex

is likely to yield ﬁndings that are more informative

of the ways gender norms impinge on the behavior

of men and women than they are informative about

the ways in which men and women choose to adopt

particular nonverbal behaviors.

Just as sex-role orientation (psychological

gender) appears to moderate sex differences in

nonverbal behavior, sexual orientation is also likely

to interact with biological and psychological gen-

der and to modulate gender differences in a variety

of nonverbal behaviors. To date, researchers have

shown surprisingly little interest in document-

ing these effects. Numerous common stereotypes

suggest that gay men and lesbian women pos-

sess nonverbal “markers” that distinguish them

from heterosexual men and women. Indeed, some

research has conﬁrmed that gay men readily recog-

nize and utilize these cues to identify one another

(Carroll & Gilroy, 2002). It turns out that straight

people are also able to identify above chance which

men are gay and which are straight from photo-

graphs of their faces (Rule, Ambady, Adams, &

Macrae, 2008). Yet, whether the nonverbal behav-

iors of gay and lesbian individuals differ from those

of heterosexual males and females (and if so, in

what ways) remains essentially unexplored. Addi-

tionally, homophobic attitudes and vigilance on the

part of heterosexual individuals (particularly men)

to behave in hetero-normative ways may inﬂuence

the nonverbal behavior of heterosexual individu-

als in ways that would not necessarily be predicted

by biological sex alone. Thus, focusing exclusively

on the nonverbal behaviors of heterosexual men

and women will likely advance our knowledge of

the ways in which heterosexual scripts and hetero-

normative pressures modulate the nonverbal expres-

sions of men and women, rather than increasing our

understanding of the ways gender broadly construed

is manifest in the display of nonverbal cues.

Biological sex, psychological gender, and sexual

orientation not only interact in complex ways to

produce unique patterns of nonverbal behavior

but gender aspects of nonverbal behavior are also

exquisitely sensitive to social context. For example,

M. LaFrance and Carmen (1980) showed how the

gendered nature of a task (instrumental or expres-

sive) interacted with gender and sex-role orientation

to determine vocal nonverbal behavior. The next

section more fully discusses how context affects gen-

der aspects of nonverbal behavior. For the moment,

it is important to note one further way that emerges

when gender is deconstructed. Some contexts are

Gender and Nonverbal Behavior

141

also gendered not just in the sense that they are

more likely to be occupied by females versus males

but because the behaviors expected there are pre-

sumed to have a more feminine or masculine qual-

ity to them such that whoever temporarily resides

in such spaces will more likely show the expected

behavior regardless of his or her sex.

CONSIDERING CONTEXT

As we will show, the presence of even small changes

in a given setting can magnify or minimize the

expression of nonverbal behavior differences in men

and women, such that gender differences in a given

domain (e.g., smiling) will be larger in certain con-

texts and smaller or even reversed in others. We have

mentioned that both men and women strive to “do

gender” well so as to avoid being perceived as gender-

deviant (e.g., West & Zimmerman, 1987). This sug-

gests that, to the extent that an individual feels that

his or her behavior is being monitored or judged,

he or she is likely to respond by behaving in gender-

normative ways. Alternatively, the absence of obser-

vation by others may lighten the pressure to behave

in accord with gendered expectations. In the ﬁrst

instance, sex differences may be more manifestly

evident than in the latter instance. The key point is

that certain aspects of the situation (e.g., the presence

of observers) make gender norms and expectations

more salient and, thus, trigger more gender-normative

behavior. This has been shown for the behavior of smil-

ing. As will be discussed in more detail, women tend to

smile more than men, but this difference is even greater

when participants feel that they are being observed by

others (M. LaFrance, Hecht, & Paluck, 2003).

There are two additional contextual factors that

moderate the size of gender differences in nonver-

bal behavior. These have to do with the number of

people who are present as well as how many of each

sex are present (e.g., their sex composition). For

example, research has found that men have a higher

tendency than women to interrupt speakers and

that this difference is especially large in multiperson

compared to two-person encounters (Anderson &

Leaper, 1998). Additionally, the largest sex differ-

ences for interruptions occur in mixed- rather than

same-gender groups or dyads. Thus, these data

show that when it comes to interruptive behavior,

a larger difference favoring males will be found for

mixed-sex groups; in these conditions, men would

be expected to interrupt the most, and women the

least. The difference would be attenuated, and a

much smaller effect would emerge in same-sex

interactions involving only two people.

However, gender composition has the opposite

effect on gaze behavior such that the largest gender

differences emerge in same- rather than mixed-gender

dyads (J. A. Hall, 1984; J. A. Hall & Gunnery, 2013;

Yee, Bailenson, Urbanek, Chang, & Merget, 2007).

Women tend to gaze at their interaction partners

more than men do, and they also tend to be looked

at more than men are. Both factors lead to the

highest levels of partner gazing in female–female

pairs. Similarly, some research suggests that touch

behavior is more acceptable and expected in

female–female dyads compared to male–male dyads

(Derlega, Catanzaro, & Lewis, 2001). Thus, it is

clear that an examination of gender differences in

nonverbal behavior that fails to consider the number

and gender of interaction partners will result in an

incomplete or incorrect picture of how much males

and females differ in their nonverbal behavior.

Finally, situational demands may override gender

norms to affect sex differences in nonverbal cues.

Various tasks and roles often prescribe particular

nonverbal behaviors of whoever is called upon to

engage in the salient activity. The effect of such situ-

ational demands is often to minimize sex differences

in accompanying nonverbal behavior. For example,

although women generally tend to smile more than

men, this difference is greatly reduced when both male

and female participants are engaged in caregiving activ-

ities (M. LaFrance et al., 2003). Likewise, although

women on average orient their bodies more face-on

with their interaction partners (J. A. Hall, 1984),

both men and women orient their bodies toward one

another (Fichten, Tagalakis, Judd, Wright, & Amsel,

1992) when ﬂirtation is the operative dynamic. How-

ever, there are social contexts in which gender polar-

ization is assumed, and in that case, gender differences

in nonverbal behavior are probably accentuated.

Finally, in some contexts, behaviors can become

acceptable that are typically not regarded as such—

for example, women touch other women more than

LaFrance and Vial

142

men touch other men, and both men and women

consider male–male touch to be somewhat atypi-

cal and perhaps inappropriate (Derlega et al., 2001).

However, in a stereotypically masculine context,

such as contact sports, these norms are more lax;

male–male touch is greater, and, though not elimi-

nated, the size of the gender difference is substantially

reduced (Kneidinger, Maple, & Tross, 2001).

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN

NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR

We hope the preceding discussion demonstrates

reasons for regarding gender as a multidimensional

construct as well as the need to attend to context

so as to understand why elaboration is needed

regarding whether men and women differ in their

nonverbal behavior. In this section, we discuss sex

differences in speciﬁc behaviors, summarizing reli-

able ﬁndings from the existing literature. To do

this, we draw on several meta-analyses, but we also

cite and discuss individual studies that have taken

a more nuanced approach to the question of gender

and nonverbal behavior. Within each section,

we also provide a brief discussion of remaining

questions and avenues for future research.

We cover nonverbal behaviors that have

received the most empirical attention: encoding

and decoding accuracy, smiling, gazing, touching,

interpersonal distance, body orientation, gesture and

posture, and vocal nonverbal behavior (e.g., inter-

rupting). However, we also include sections discuss-

ing some nonverbal behaviors for which the study of

gender differences has been relatively minimal: gait,

blushing, and crying. Finally, we devote a section

to the discussion of gender differences in nonverbal

behavior in the case of heterosexual ﬂirtation, as it

offers a social ritual where gender norms and expec-

tations impinge on the nonverbal behavior of men

and women as they interact with each other.

Encoding Accuracy

Women are more accurate than men in producing

and conveying nonverbal cues—that is, others are

more accurate in reading women’s nonverbal behav-

ior than they are at accurately reading men’s expres-

sive behavior. Presumably, this is the case because

women are more expressive in general

than men and/or the cues they send are more

easily read. Overall, this sex difference is substantial

(r = .25; 35 studies in J. A. Hall’s, 1984, meta-

analysis). Depending on how such a difference is

observed, whether researchers measure the spon-

taneous nonverbal behavior of men and women, or

whether men and women are asked to deliberately

convey particular emotions or affective sentiments,

women have an advantage over men in terms of the

ability to produce nonverbal behavior that others

can read as intended (J. A. Hall, 1984). This differ-

ence is stronger for facial expressions (e.g., smiling,

frowning) than for vocal cues (e.g., loudness, pitch;

J. A. Hall, 1984).

Meta-analyses show, however, that gender

differences in encoding accuracy vary in size

depending on other factors so that it is not always

the case that women are clearer senders than men.

For instance, sex differences in sending accuracy

increase with age, such that there are greater dif-

ferences among adult men and women than among

boys and girls (J. A. Hall, 1984), and research indi-

cates that this difference is mostly driven by a deﬁ-

nite decrease in the accuracy of facial encoding by

boys after 4 years of age (Buck, 1977). In addition,

research on prepubescent children suggests that

greater social competence among girls is associated

with increased encoding ability, but the same rela-

tionship with social competence does not hold for

boys (Custrini & Feldman, 1989).

It is worth noting that gender differences in

encoding accuracy and overall expressivity do not

appear to derive from a difference in how much

women and men experience emotion. In other

words, the reasons why women exhibit an advan-

tage over men in the capacity and the tendency to

be more nonverbally expressive are greater than a

simple difference in how and how much men and

women experience emotions. Although cultural

stereotypes abound that women are more emo-

tional than men (Fischer, 1993; M. LaFrance &

Banaji, 1992; Shields, 1987; J. E. Williams & Best,

1990), empirical evidence for this gender differ-

ence in experienced emotion is inconsistent. In

fact, even though women have been observed to be

more spontaneously expressive than men, women

Gender and Nonverbal Behavior

143

and men report experiencing the same emotions to

the same extent (Barrett, Robin, Pietromonaco, &

Eyssell, 1998; Kring & Gordon, 1998; Robinson,

Johnson, & Shields, 1998), and studies compar-

ing the physiological reactions of men and women

have found that, if anything, men’s physiological

responses to emotion-inducing events tend to be

stronger than women’s (Kring & Gordon, 1998).

Thus, although women and men seem to experience

the same emotions to the same degree, women are

consistently more nonverbally expressive (and more

readable) than are men.

The sex difference in encoding accuracy is likely

due to changes in both male and female behavior:

Men are more likely to suppress overt displays of

emotion where women do not, but in some con-

texts, women actually amplify their expressive

behaviors (M. LaFrance & Banaji, 1992; see also

Hochschild, 1983). In support for male suppression,

there is evidence that high expressivity by males is

often perceived as questionable, and even young

boys anticipate negative repercussions for openly

expressing emotion (Fuchs & Thelen, 1988). As to

whether femininity is associated with greater expres-

sivity, Zuckerman, DeFrank, Spiegel, and Larrance

(1982) found that more accurate encoders of inten-

tional cues (facial and vocal) were those who scored

higher on femininity and lower on masculinity.

Remaining Questions

The ﬁnding that encoding accuracy decreases sharply

in males during childhood suggests that socialization

plays a signiﬁcant role affecting the inclination or

ability to display one’s feelings and intentions nonver-

bally. However, except for Zuckerman et al.’s (1982)

study noted earlier, little research to date has exam-

ined whether sex-role identiﬁcation also affects encod-

ing accuracy. In short, the degree to which a person

identiﬁes as feminine appears to predict encoding

accuracy in both men and women. Narus and Fischer

(1982) also found that androgynous males were more

emotionally expressive than “masculine” men.

As is the case with several nonverbal commu-

nication modalities, researchers exploring gender

differences in encoding accuracy have focused pri-

marily on heterosexual men and women, whereas

little is known as to whether sexual orientation

might moderate these differences. For example,

the ability to accurately communicate nonverbally

may be higher in gay men compared to hetero-

sexual men and perhaps lower in lesbians than

heterosexual women.

Additionally, although observers can more accu-

rately identify emotional states from viewing female

than male faces (Wagner, MacDonald, & Manstead,

1986), this pattern does not generalize to all emo-

tions. For example, there is evidence that women

are more likely than men to suppress the expres-

sion of anger, presumably because anger is seen

to be incompatible with femininity or prescriptive

gender stereotypes (Heilman, 2001; Lerner, 1985;

Rudman, 1998). This suggests a possible interaction

between sex-role identiﬁcation and situation on the

nonverbal expressions of men and women, such that

depending on the situation (e.g., a baby shower vs. a

competitive encounter), sex-typed (but not androg-

ynous) men and women would be expected to differ

the most in their nonverbal behavior.

Decoding Accuracy

Women are also more accurate than men in

correctly deciphering the nonverbal behaviors of

others, regardless of the gender of the target person

(Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, Raste, & Plumb,

2001; Chan, Rogers, Parisotto, & Biesanz, 2011;

J. A. Hall, 1978, 1984; J. A. Hall & Matsumoto,

2004; Letzring, 2010; Rosenthal, Hall, DiMatteo,

Rogers, & Archer, 1979; Sasson et al., 2010;

Thomas & Fletcher, 2003; Vogt & Colvin, 2003;

but see Ickes, Gesn, & Graham, 2000, for contra-

dicting results). This sex difference has been amply

demonstrated in children and adolescents as well as

adults (Boyatzis, Chazan, & Ting, 1993; McClure,

2000; Székely et al., 2011). In fact, both meta-

analyses (J. A. Hall, 1978, 1984; McClure, 2000)

and individual studies (L. M. Williams et al., 2009)

have found that although age does not signiﬁcantly

moderate the effect of gender on decoding accuracy,

the size of the gender difference tends to be some-

what larger among adults (ranging between

r = .20 and r = .25 in J. A. Hall’s, 1984, meta-

analysis) than among children and adolescents

(r = .18; 60 studies in McClure’s, 2000, meta-

analysis). Cross-cultural research also indicates

LaFrance and Vial

144

that the country of the participant does not moderate

gender effect size for decoding accuracy (J. A. Hall,

1978; Izard, 1971; Merten, 2005; Scherer, Banse, &

Wallbott, 2001). Women’s higher decoding accuracy

also translates into their advantage at recalling other

people’s nonverbal behaviors, such as gazing, smil-

ing, and self-touching (J. A. Hall, Murphy, & Schmid

Mast, 2006). Although men tend to be generally less

successful than women at accurately decoding the

nonverbal cues of others (J. A. Hall, 1978, 1984), the

sexes part company even more so when the nonver-

bal cues in question are ambiguous (Farris, Treat,

Viken, & McFall, 2008). For example, in studies

assessing the perception of nonverbal behaviors that

may signal sexual interest, the data indicate that

males tend to perceive signiﬁcantly more ﬂirtatious-

ness, promiscuousness, and seductiveness than

female perceivers (ranging from r = .09 to r = .20

in the meta-analysis by B. H. La France, Henningsen,

Oates, & Shaw, 2009). Some have suggested that

these results are consistent with error management

theory, whereby from an evolutionary perspective, it

would be most advantageous for men to overestimate

women’s sexual interest because a false-negative

(i.e., missing cues of sexual interest) would lead to

a missed mating opportunity (B. H. La France et al.,

2009). This presumably causes men to have a lower

decisional threshold than women for labeling ambig-

uous behaviors as sexual (Haselton & Nettle, 2006).

The problem with this explanation, however, is

that men “see” more sexual interest in both males

and females (Shotland & Craig, 1988). Addition-

ally, Farris et al. (2008) found that male participants

mistook friendliness for ﬂirtatiousness just as often

as they misread ﬂirtatiousness as friendliness, pro-

viding evidence for men’s lower ability to accurately

read the nonverbal cues of others.

Finally, some research suggests that, regardless

of the gender of the perceiver, the accuracy with

which speciﬁc emotions are decoded may differ

greatly depending on the gender of the target and

the speciﬁc emotions in question. For example,

Plant, Hyde, Keltner, and Devine (2000) asked par-

ticipants to interpret photographs of adults show-

ing ambiguous anger/sadness expressions, and they

found that female targets were rated as sadder and

that male targets were rated as angrier, consistent

with gender stereotypes. Female targets’ poses were

rated as a mixture of anger and sadness even when

unambiguous expressions were presented (Plant

et al., 2000). Similarly, Hess, Adams, Grammer, and

Kleck (2009) found that androgynous faces were

more consistently and more quickly recognized

as male versus female when they displayed anger

versus happiness, respectively, which suggests that

gender stereotypes of emotion may greatly inﬂuence

observers’ accuracy when decoding ambiguous facial

expressions.

Remaining Questions

As is the case for encoding accuracy, sex-role iden-

tiﬁcation, namely, the degree to which a person

self-identiﬁes as feminine, appears to be a better

predictor of decoding accuracy than biological

sex—but, again, little research has seriously tested

this idea. One study is illustrative, however. Trom-

msdorff and John (1992) examined the communal

orientation and femininity of relationship partners

as they decoded each other’s emotions. They found

that decoding was better to the degree to which per-

ceivers had a feminine gender-role orientation.

Likewise, as is the case with other nonverbal

behaviors, researchers exploring gender differences

in decoding accuracy have focused primarily on het-

erosexual men and women, whereas little is known as

to whether sexual orientation might moderate these

differences. For example, the ability to accurately

communicate nonverbally may be higher in gay men

compared to heterosexual men. Similarly, some have

proposed that perceptual accuracy provides gay men

and lesbian women with self-protection from homo-

phobic violence, as it increases the likelihood that they

will identify other gay/lesbian individuals (Carroll &

Gilroy, 2002). Other research has shown that gays and

lesbians have higher accuracy than heterosexual men

and women when judging sexual orientation based on

nonverbal behavior and facial expression (Ambady,

Hallahan, & Conner, 1999). However, it is not known

whether this higher accuracy generalizes beyond the

detection of sexual orientation—it is possible that gay

men might have higher decoding accuracy than het-

erosexual men in general (and perhaps lesbian women

might have an advantage over heterosexual women as

well). These associations need to be empirically tested.

Gender and Nonverbal Behavior

145

Although women’s advantage in accurately read-

ing nonverbal cues appears to be general, J. A. Hall

and Gunnery (2013) have questioned whether this

advantage holds across all attributions. Most stud-

ies on decoding accuracy typically ask participants

to draw inferences about a target’s emotional state,

which is a domain in which women are socialized to

have more interest than men and likely to develop

a higher level of expertise (Brody, 1999). Thus,

decoding accuracy is one area where contextualizing

gender might prove fruitful. For example, research

is needed to evaluate decoding accuracy in domains

in which men’s decoding accuracy might not differ

from women’s or, perhaps, might even be superior,

such as accurately detecting the intentions of a rival

from his nonverbal behavior during competitive

or combative interactions. Some evidence for such

an effect comes from research showing that men’s

recall accuracy for nonverbal behavior increases

in competitive versus noncompetitive contexts

(J. A. Hall & Schmid Mast, 2008). Interestingly,

research on ﬂirting behavior indicates that both

males and females are better at decoding the sexual

interest of men than women (Place, Todd, Penke, &

Asendorpf, 2009). Thus, the contextual cues sur-

rounding nonverbal behaviors (and their distinct

self-relevance for men and women) likely impact the

size of the gender difference in decoding accuracy.

Smiling

Considerable research has examined gender differ-

ences in smiling in part inspired by the speculation

that women’s greater smiling reﬂects their low power

relative to men (Henley, 1977). For reviews of that

literature, see J. A. Hall, Carney, and Murphy (2002)

as well as M. LaFrance et al. (2003). Women are

found to generally smile more than men (r = .20 in

M. LaFrance et al.’s, 2003, meta-analysis of 418 stud-

ies). However, this effect increased or decreased in

response to a number of factors. For example, age

plays a key role, such that gender differences in smil-

ing tend to be absent among young children, largest

among adolescents, and smaller, though still present,

in adults, and all but disappearing after late middle

age. The meta-analysis by M. LaFrance et al. (2003)

found the largest gender effect (r = .28) among ado-

lescents who were 13–17 years of age; among older

participants, the magnitude of the gender

difference decreased steadily, and it was lowest

(r = .06) among older adults who were 65 years

of age or older. Similarly, J. A. Hall’s (1984)

meta-analysis as well as more recent studies

(e.g., DeSantis, Mohan, & Steinhorst, 2005;

Dodd, Russell, & Jenkins, 1999; Else-Quest, Hyde,

Goldsmith, & Van Hulle, 2006; Wondergem &

Friedlmeier, 2012) have found no gender differences

in the social smiling of young children.

The social context in which smiling occurs

has also been found to substantially affect the size

of the sex difference (M. LaFrance et al., 2003).

Women smile more than men when the situation

involves social engagement, and this is particularly

evident when the context is marked by social ten-

sion. Accordingly, women’s tendency to smile more

than men is higher when they are being observed by

others, when they are instructed to get acquainted,

when they engage in self-disclosure, and when they

experience embarrassment (M. LaFrance et al.,

2003). These situations make communality more

salient, which heightens the expectation for more

feminine behavior. Of note, the size of the difference

is smaller or absent in situations where males and

females are engaged in the same task or occupy the

same social role.

Psychological gender has also been found to

affect the size of the sex difference in smiling. For

example, M. LaFrance and Carmen (1980) catego-

rized male and female participants according to

their sex-role orientation (i.e., feminine sex-typed,

masculine sex-typed, and androgynous; Bem, 1977),

and they observed their nonverbal behavior. In this

study, as expected, a main effect of biological gender

emerged, such that women smiled more than men.

However, androgynous men and women did not

differ in their smiling; rather, the effect was driven

by feminine women and masculine men, in which

the former smiled signiﬁcantly more than the latter

(M. LaFrance & Carmen, 1980).

Although for many speciﬁc nonverbal behaviors

there is a dearth of cross-cultural examination of

gender differences, this is not the case with smiling.

Studies have examined the sex differences in smiling

across nations and within countries (M. LaFrance

et al., 2003). Moreover, the size of this difference varies

LaFrance and Vial

146

considerably, with the largest difference reported

with Canadian samples (r = .30), and the smallest

difference emerging in British nationals (r = .07).

Ethnicity also plays a role in U.S. samples, with Cau-

casians exhibiting larger differences (r = .22) than

African Americans (r = .13; M. LaFrance et al., 2003).

Remaining Questions

Whether sexual orientation might moderate the

effect of biological sex on smiling in a similar

way as sex-role orientation has shown to do

(M. LaFrance & Carmen, 1980) remains an empiri-

cal question. It is possible that gay men might smile

signiﬁcantly more than heterosexual men, whereas

lesbian women might smile less than heterosexual

women. There certainly exist stereotypes about this,

yet to date no research has examined this proposition

empirically.

Gazing and Eye Contact

In infancy, girls gaze at social stimuli more than boys

(Connellan, Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Batki, &

Ahluwalia, 2000; Lutchmaya & Baron-Cohen, 2002),

a pattern that is evident as well with older children

and adults (J. A. Hall, 1984). The consistent ﬁnding

is that adult women gaze at their interaction part-

ners more than men do. In fact, the sex difference

in gazing is even larger among adults (r = .32 in

adult men and women; J. A. Hall, 1984) than it is

among infants and children, (r = .20 and r = .19,

respectively). It is worth noting that these patterns

are most pronounced when the measure of gazing

involves duration rather than the number of indi-

vidual looks at another person (J. A. Hall, 1984).

In fact, some investigators have reported the oppo-

site effect when the measure involves frequency of

glances. In short, men’s gaze patterns are such that

they look more frequently but for brief durations at

their interaction partners than women do (see, e.g.,

Bente, Donaghy, & Suwelack, 1998).

Gender differences in gazing are also sensitive

to sex composition of the interacting pair, such

that the largest sex difference in gazing favoring

females is observed when the comparison entails

contrasting female–female with male–male dyads

(r = .45; J. A. Hall, 1984; Yee et al., 2007). J. A.

Hall and Gunnery (2013) have suggested that this

is due to the contribution of both interactants. In

addition to women gazing at their dyadic partners

more than men, research shows that women are

gazed at by others more than men are (r = .31 based

on six studies in J. A. Hall’s, 1984, meta-analysis).

Thus, because women tend to gaze more, and

because individuals tend to gaze at women more,

female–female dyads exhibit more eye gazing

behavior than cross-sex or male–male dyads.

Although J. A. Hall and Gunnery (2013) have

suggested that men are somewhat uncomfortable

with eye-to-eye contact, they sometimes appear

very comfortable staring down others when they are

talking but look at others little when they are listen-

ing. Dovidio, Ellyson, Keating, Heltman, and Brown

(1988) have shown, for example, that men exhibit

a pattern called high-visual dominance: They gaze

more at their interaction partners while speaking

than while listening. This is especially true of men

in high-power positions. Women, in contrast, tend

to do the opposite: They gaze at their partners more

while they are listening than when they are speak-

ing. Again, we see the effect of context. Both sexes

sometimes show visual dominance when they

are in high-power roles (Ellyson, Dovidio,

& Brown, 1992).

As with smiling, femininity and masculinity

have been shown to moderate gender differences in

gazing. In the study described earlier, M. LaFrance

and Carmen (1980) looked at gazing behavior and

found that androgynous men and women did not

differ signiﬁcantly from each other in gaze extent,

but androgynous males gazed more than masculine

males, and androgynous females gazed less than

feminine females.

Remaining Questions

It has been theorized that eye gaze is used in the

gay and lesbian community for purposes of iden-

tity recognition (Nicholas, 2004), which attests

to the possibility that gaze may add a function for

gay men and lesbians that is not utilized by het-

erosexual men and women. Indeed, one study has

demonstrated that eye-contact plays an important

role for lesbians and gay men in identifying one

another (Carroll & Gilroy, 2002). However, to date

no research has systematically evaluated whether

Gender and Nonverbal Behavior

147

sexual orientation moderates gender differences in

duration and/or frequency of gazing behavior more

generally.

Finally, the degree of cross-cultural modera-

tion of gender differences in gazing behavior is

unknown. In East Asian cultures, for example, eye

contact is often construed as impolite, whereas

averted eye gaze is seen as respectful (Knapp & Hall,

2010). Whether stringent norms about gazing lead

to smaller (or even reversed) gender differences in

gazing behavior in Eastern versus Western cultures

is an empirical question.

Touch

Who touches whom, in what ways, how much,

and with what repercussions has been the subject

of empirical scrutiny for more than 40 years start-

ing with Henley’s (1977) proposal that high-status

people have greater license to touch a low-status

person than the reverse. She reported that men touch

women more than women initiate touch with men

and saw this asymmetry as reﬂecting status differ-

ences. J. A. Hall’s analyses have led her to conclude,

however, that the reverse pattern is more reliable.

Compared to men, J. A. Hall (1984, 2011) has

reported that women generally touch others more

than men do.

Subsequent efforts have attempted to specify

the factors that might explain these discrepant pat-

terns. Major, Schmidlin, and Williams (1990) posed

that several factors could potentially account for

the results. For example, age matters. For dyads

younger than 30 years of age, male-initiated touch

dominates, but the opposite (more female-initiated

touch) is observed for dyads older than 30 years

of age (J. A. Hall & Veccia, 1990; Willis & Briggs,

1992; Willis & Dodds, 1998).

The nature of the relationship also counts. Males

appear to initiate touch more than females when the

relationship is a nonintimate one and the setting is

public. Among married couples in contrast, wives

touch husbands more than the other way around

(Smith, Vogel, Madon, & Edwards, 2011). Consis-

tent with this, unmarried men are more comfortable

with touch than unmarried women, whereas the

reverse is true for married men and women (Hanzal,

Segrin, & Dorros, 2008).

The sex composition of the relevant dyad also

impacts which person touches which other person.

Like gazing, male–male and female–female dyads

differ most in interpersonal touching, such that

female–female dyads exhibit the highest levels of

interpersonal touch and male–male dyads the lowest

(Kneidinger et al., 2001; Montemayor & Flannery,

1989; Stier & Hall, 1984). Women report feeling

more comfortable than men with same-sex touch

(Andersen & Leibowitz, 1978; Roese, Olson,

Borenstein, Martin, & Shores, 1992) but less

comfortable with touch from strangers (Heslin,

Nguyen, & Nguyen, 1983). Clearly, the meaning

of touch differs for males and females when the

encounter is a heterosexual one. The more females

perceive touch as sexual, the less they perceive it as

warm and friendly, whereas the more males perceive

touch as sexual, the more they perceive it as warm

and pleasant (Nguyen, Heslin, & Nguyen, 1975).

In a set of studies with college students, Roese

et al. (1992) examined attitudes toward sexual

minorities and same-sex touch, and they demon-

strated that self-reported homophobia and discom-

fort with same-sex touch were correlated among

male and female students. Moreover, the researchers

covertly observed and recorded frequency of touch

in same-sex dyads of students interacting in a cafete-

ria, and they later approached the dyads and asked

them to complete a scale on homophobic attitudes.

Homophobic attitudes were negatively correlated

with frequency of same-sex touch for all partici-

pants. Male participants, in particular, had stronger

homophobic attitudes than women, and they exhib-

ited lower frequencies of touch (Roese et al., 1992).

In another study, participants were asked to evaluate

touching versus nontouching line drawings showing

same- and cross-sex dyads, and the effect of partici-

pant sexual orientation on evaluations was examined

(Derlega et al., 2001). Heterosexual participants

(but not gay, lesbian, or bisexual men and women)

rated touch in male–male dyads as less appropriate

than touch among cross-sex or female–female dyads.

Heterosexual participants also tended to infer higher

levels of sexual involvement in touching versus non-

touching drawings depicting cross-sex or male–male

pairs compared to nonheterosexual participants

(but no effect emerged for female–female pairs).

LaFrance and Vial

148

Taken together, these ﬁndings suggest high

vigilance on the part of heterosexual men and

women to same-sex touch, particularly with regard

to male–male touch, likely stemming from nega-

tive attitudes toward homosexuality and sexual

minorities (Roese et al., 1992) as well as from an

increased tendency to perceive such touch as sex-

ual (Derlega et al., 2001). There is, however, the

noted exception to proscriptions against male–male

touch, speciﬁcally in settings involving competitive

sports. There, male–male touch is less inhibited and

is more likely to emerge compared to other settings

(although even in this context, male–male touch is

less frequent than female–female touch; Kneidinger

et al., 2001). One reason for this might be that the

unambiguous nature of the sports setting might

counter the tendency to perceive male–male touch

as sexual (Derlega et al., 2001), thus deeming it

more acceptable to heterosexual perceivers.

Gender differences in touch also depend on the

type and quality of touch examined. Research has

shown that men tend to touch more intimately and

for longer durations than women (McCormick &

Jones, 1989). Also, men touch women with the

hand more than women touch men with the hand,

but for nonhand touches, women touch more than

men (DiBiase & Gunnoe, 2004; J. A. Hall & Vec-

cia, 1990). Interestingly, type of touch seems to

interact with relationship status, such that effects

emerge for men and women who are not in a rela-

tionship; but for married couples, women touch

men more than the other way around, regardless

of the type of touch examined (i.e., expressive and

supportive touches; hand and nonhand touches;

Smith et al., 2011).

Research has also identiﬁed differences in the

accuracy or effectiveness with which men and

women use touch to communicate with others.

Among unacquainted participants, regardless of

the gender of their interaction partner, women are

more likely than men to successfully communicate

sympathy using touch, whereas men are more likely

than women to successfully use touch to commu-

nicate anger (Hertenstein & Keltner, 2011). This

research also found that happiness tended to be suc-

cessfully conveyed by touch in female–female dyads

only (Hertenstein & Keltner, 2011).

In addition to interpersonal touch, research has

examined gender differences in self-touch, which

some regard as indicating self-consciousness.

Compared to men, women touch themselves more

(r = .22; J. A. Hall, 1984; McCormick & Jones,

1989). Gender differences in self-touch have been

examined particularly in the context of cross-sex

ﬂirting interactions. This research has typically

found that women tend to self-touch during the ini-

tial stages of ﬂirting, before contact is initiated, more

so than men (Moore, 1995; Scheﬂen, 1965).

Remaining Questions

Cross-cultural research on gender differences in

touch has yet to receive the attention it deserves.

One study focusing on men and women’s attitudes

toward same-sex touch found that women were

more comfortable with this kind of touch in the

United States as well as in Malaysia, Spain, and

Chile (Willis & Rawdon, 1994). More than 50 years

ago, anthropologist Edward Hall (1959) proposed

that cultures varied in the degree to which they

were oriented toward physical contact or not. For

example, he noted that Southern European and

Middle Eastern peoples preferred close interpersonal

distances and more touching than people living in

more northern climes. Nonetheless, no data cur-

rently exist on the degree to which gender might

interact with these cultural patterns.

Many of the moderators that have shown to be

important for other nonverbal behaviors (e.g.,

smiling) have not been systematically explored with

respect to touch—such as the presence of observers.

Also, whether sex-role orientation might interact

with biological sex to determine touch behavior

is not known. It could be the case that qualita-

tive differences in the meaning of touch would

emerge, such that masculine men might use touch

most successfully and most often to communicate

anger or dominance (as has been shown recently;

Hertenstein & Keltner, 2011), whereas androgynous

men might use touch to express a wider variety of

emotions—such as sympathy.

Similarly, whereas some research has explored

how attitudes toward sexual minorities inﬂuence

attitudes toward same-sex touch, an understand-

ing of how sexual orientation interacts with actual

Gender and Nonverbal Behavior

149

touch behavior is lacking. Because the existing

research suggests a high degree of vigilance on the

part of heterosexual men with respect to same-sex

touch, it might be expected that same-sex dyads

among gay men would touch signiﬁcantly more

than male–male dyads among heterosexual men. For

women, it is less clear that sexual orientation would

interact with gender to inﬂuence touch behavior,

but this is an empirical question.

Interpersonal Distance, Body Orientation,

Gesture, and Posture

Compared to women, men tend to adopt larger

interpersonal distances with interaction partners

(r = .27; 17 studies in J. A. Hall’s, 1984, meta-

analysis). Not surprisingly, interpersonal distance

is at its maximum in male–male dyads compared to

female–female or mixed sex dyads. This has been

shown cross-culturally both in the United States and

Turkey (Ozdemir, 2008). Looked at from another

angle, J. A. Hall’s (1984) meta-analysis reported that

people tend to set larger interpersonal distances

when interacting with men than with women

(r = .43; nine studies). This was true of both adult

participants as well as children, although relatively

few studies have examined interpersonal distance in

children (J. A. Hall & Gunnery, 2013).

With respect to body orientation, female adults

as well as children tend to orient more directly

toward their interaction partners than males,

although this effect is smaller than other gender dif-

ferences in nonverbal communication (r = .15 and

r = .12, respectively; J. A. Hall, 1984). Moreover, in

the speciﬁc context of heterosexual ﬂirtation, this

gender difference in body orientation disappears,

as both men and women orient their bodies toward

the person of interest (Fichten et al., 1992). Some

research has also found gender differences in body

synchrony or posture mirroring—the spontaneous

postural matching of interaction partners, which is

believed to convey interpersonal rapport (Scheﬂen,

1964). M. LaFrance and Ickes (1981) examined the

interaction between gender and sex-role orientation

on body mirroring. They found that in same-sex

dyads, feminine (i.e., sex-typed) females engaged

in signiﬁcantly more body mirroring than same-

sex dyads of masculine males. However, among

androgynous pairs, the effect was reversed with

male–male dyads showing more body mirroring

than female–female dyads.

With respect to small body movements, results

indicate that men tend to be reliably more ﬁdgety

and restless than women (r = .34). However,

women engage in more head nodding when inter-

acting with others, a behavior sometimes referred

to as a back-channel response, such as uttering

“hmm” in reaction to a speaker’s statement.

Back-channel responses are used to convey that

one is actively listening to an interaction partner.

Women have also been found to use hand move-

ments and gestures while speaking more so than

men (r = .28; J. A. Hall, 1984).

Like body orientation, women have been found

to lean forward toward their interaction partner

more than men (r = .16; J. A. Hall, 1984; Helweg-

Larsen, Cunningham, Carrico, & Pergram, 2004).

Posture has also been described on an expansive-

compacted dimension, and here men tend to

adopt more relaxed postures (i.e., asymmetrically

arranged arms and legs; r = .33) as well as more

expansive body postures (i.e., limbs reaching far-

ther away from the body; r = .46; J. A. Hall, 1984),

whereas women, in contrast, typically maintain

more restricted postures with legs close together

and arms close to the torso. For example, obser-

vations of seated participants on an urban metro

revealed that men more often sat in an open pos-

ture with their legs apart and their arms away from

their sides while women sat in closed postures,

that is with upper legs against each other and

arms against the trunk (Vrugt & Luyerink, 2000).

This sex difference in posture expansiveness has

been linked with differences in dominance and

social power. Body openness in adults is positively

related to dominance (J. A. Hall, Coats, & LeBeau,

2005), and research on children reveals that one of

the key differences between dominant and

submissive individuals is body expansiveness

(Weisfeld & Beresford, 1982). With regard to

adults, research has also found that expansive

postures cause power-related feelings (Tiedens &

Fragale, 2003) and behavior as well as changes in

hormone levels normally associated with high rank

(Carney, Cuddy, & Yap, 2010).

LaFrance and Vial

150

Remaining Questions

As is the case with same-sex touch behavior, an

understanding of how sexual orientation moder-

ates gender differences in interpersonal distance

and orientation as well body movement and posture

is sorely lacking. Homophobic attitudes or greater

vigilance to potential threat by heterosexual men

may play a role in men’s preference for greater

interpersonal distance in same-sex dyads compared

to women. Future research might examine inter-

personal distance by varying dyadic composition

and sexual orientation. It is plausible that inter-

personal distance might be signiﬁcantly reduced in

male–male dyads of gay compared to heterosexual

men. Similarly, research looking at hand gestur-

ing during speech and expressive body movements

might beneﬁt from evaluating how sexual orienta-

tion might moderate gender differences. As with

smiling, there are stereotypes expecting gay men to

engage in more sociability, often expressed in more

hand movements while talking compared to hetero-

sexual men (Webbink, 1981), but whether this is

truly the case remains to be examined empirically.

As the ﬁndings by M. LaFrance and Ickes (1981)

suggest, femininity and masculinity might be bet-

ter predictors of some of the gender differences

discussed in this section than biological sex. For

example, maintaining a compressed, upright body

posture may be part of enacting femininity scripts,

and thus androgynous women might be expected to

display less restricted and more relaxed body pos-

tures compared to feminine-typed women. Similarly,

many of the behaviors shown to be more common

in women than men (such as maintaining closer

interpersonal distance, orienting the body toward

an interaction partner, head nodding, and forward

leaning) are behaviors denoting social sensibility—a

stereotypically communal characteristic. Thus, indi-

viduals with higher femininity scores might exhibit

these behaviors to a greater extent regardless of their

gender, and androgynous men and women might fall

somewhere in between sex-typed men and women.

More research is needed to address these possibilities.

Vocal Nonverbal Behavior

In general, men speak louder than women and

with more speech disturbances, such as ﬁlled

pauses—“ah,” “um,” or incomplete sentences

(J. A. Hall, 1984; Schmid Mast & Sczesny, 2010).

Research has also shown that men tend to be more

talkative than women (Leaper & Ayres, 2007),

although recent ﬁndings suggest that this tendency

might be moderated by men’s situational sense

of power (Brescoll, 2011). In other words, men’s

tendency to surpass women in talking time (i.e.,

volubility) tends to disappear when men are experi-

mentally induced into a low-power mindset.

As noted, women generally exceed men in the

use of back channels while listening to others

(J. A. Hall, 1984; Leaper & Robnett, 2011). In con-

trast, men are more likely than women to interrupt

others’ speech with the goal to take over the conver-

sation, sometimes referred to as intrusive interrup-

tions, rather than merely speaking at the same time as

another person (Anderson & Leaper, 1998). Intru-

sive interruptions are more likely to discourage the

original speaker from continuing. Thus, a relatively

small gender difference when considering inter-

ruptions in general (r = .08) becomes substantially

larger when considering intrusive interruptions spe-

ciﬁcally (r = .16; Anderson & Leaper, 1998). Simi-

lar to this, M. LaFrance and Carmen (1980) did not

ﬁnd a signiﬁcant difference in interruptions by men

and women when all types of interruptions were

combined into a single index. However, when the

researchers looked at interruptive statements (asser-

tive) and interruptive questions (responsive) sepa-

rately, clear gender differences emerged, with males

making signiﬁcantly more interruptive statements

and women inserting more interruptive questions.

The number of interaction partners has been

shown to moderate the size of the gender difference

in the tendency to interrupt, such that men make

more intrusive interruptions than women, especially

in group settings (i.e., more than two interacting

partners; r = .30; Anderson & Leaper, 1998). The

difference is almost negligible for dyads (r = .06).

The same trend emerged when considering any kind

of interruption, though the difference tended to be

smaller (r = .13 in groups; r = .03 in dyads). In

Anderson and Leaper’s (1998) meta-analysis, dyadic

composition moderated the tendency for men to

interrupt more than women, such that the larg-

est difference emerged for intrusive interruptions

Gender and Nonverbal Behavior

151

occurring in mixed-gender groups or dyads

(r = .30 in same-sex and r = .06 in mixed-sex

groups for intrusive interruptions, and r = .01 in

same-sex and r = .08 in mixed-sex groups or dyads

for overall interruptions; Anderson & Leaper, 1998).

Degree of familiarity between the interacting

partners has been shown to moderate the likelihood

that a gender difference in interruptive behavior will

emerge. For intrusive interruptions, Anderson and

Leaper (1998) found that gender effects were more

likely when conversing with strangers (r = .19)

rather than familiar persons (r = .09). Due to a

limited number of studies examining intrusive inter-

ruptions among familiar persons, Anderson and

Leaper were not able to examine different types of

relationships (e.g., friends vs. romantic partners).

For overall interruptions, however, they were able to

compare friends, romantic partners, and other types

of close relationships. They found the largest (albeit,

relatively small) gender difference among romantic

partners (r = .10). Interestingly, among friends, the

difference between men and women’s overall inter-

ruptive behavior had the opposite direction, with

women interrupting their friends more than men

did but only very slightly so (r = .07). Among other

close relationship partners as well as among strang-

ers, the pattern of gender differences for overall

interruptions mirrored that for intrusive interrup-

tions, although they were smaller in magnitude

(r = .06 and r = .08, respectively).

Finally, M. LaFrance and Carmen (1980) exam-

ined the interaction between psychological gender

orientation and biological gender on two kinds of

vocal behavior. Speciﬁcally, they looked at inter-

ruptions and ﬁlled pauses in both task-focused and

emotionally expressive contexts. In general, mascu-

line males emitted signiﬁcantly more ﬁlled pauses

than androgynous males and feminine females.

Interruptive statements were signiﬁcantly more

common among androgynous men and women com-

pared to sex-typed men and women (i.e., masculine

males and feminine females). Importantly, context

moderated these interactions, such that masculine

males and androgynous females emitted more inter-

ruptive statements in the task condition than in the

emotive condition, whereas sex-typed females made

few interruptive statements in both contexts, and

androgynous males maintained a relatively high

level of interrupting in both contexts. Thus, this

research illuminates how biological gender, psycho-

logical gender, and gendered aspects of the speciﬁc

context interact to determine nonverbal behavior in

ways that would not be evident if all three factors

had been examined separately.

Remaining Questions

Whether the gender differences in vocal nonverbal

behavior summarized here would emerge cross-

culturally is for future research to determine. Polite-

ness rules, the importance assigned to hierarchy or

verticality within a speciﬁc culture, and level of gen-

der equality all may exacerbate or ameliorate men’s

tendency to talk more and interrupt more than

women. Similarly, whether these differences remain

somewhat stable throughout the life span or ﬂuctu-

ate with age remains to be examined.

The impact of power and status on gender dif-

ferences in nonverbal behavior also needs to be

evaluated more thoroughly. To date, there is limited

experimental evidence that power increases men’s but

not women’s talking time (Brescoll, 2011). Whether

power and status may moderate other gender differ-

ences in vocal nonverbal behavior—such as the use of

back-channel responses, interruptive statements and

questions, and ﬁlled pauses, and so forth—is a more

open question. Men might curtail their interruptive

behavior and speech time when interacting with a

woman who holds greater power (i.e., she is per-

ceived to have more expertise in a speciﬁc domain).

For example, male patients interacting with female

physicians may not engage in the same type of vocal

nonverbal behavior that is generally found when

looking at other types of interaction contexts.

Other Nonverbal Domains

There are three remaining nonverbal domains that, for

whatever reason, have not been as central to the study

of nonverbal communication in general and gender

aspects in particular as the domains we have covered

thus far. The three domains are gait or global move-

ment style, blushing, and crying. Because few studies

have been designed to look at the ways these behav-

iors may differ in men and women, no meta-analyses

are available for us to draw from at this point.

LaFrance and Vial

152

Gait or walking style, however, differs in men

and women (Kerrigan, Todd, & Croce, 1998; Nigg,

Fisher, & Ronsky, 1994; Troje, 2002), and perceivers

can identify the gender of a walker with minimal cues

with above chance accuracy (Brooks et al., 2008; Pol-

lick, Kay, Heim, & Stringer, 2005). Swaying hips are

perceived to be more likely characteristic of walking

by females, whereas swaggering shoulders are per-

ceived to be more likely displayed by men, and it is

these perceptions that aid in the inference of the gen-

der of a walking target (Johnson & Tassinary, 2005).

Additionally, recent research suggests that the walk-

ing styles of gay men and lesbian women differ from

that of heterosexuals in degree of shoulder swagger

(a male-typical behavior) and hip sway (a female-

typical behavior; see Johnson, Gill, Reichman, &

Tassinary, 2007). Beyond replicating these basic

effects, more research is needed in this area to under-

stand how individual characteristics such as age and

race may moderate gender differences in walking

style. Moreover, in keeping with our theme of decon-

structing gender, we recommend that future research

examine whether gender differences in walking style

are moderated by psychological gender. For example,

do the walking styles of androgynous men and

androgynous women differ as much as those of

sex-typed men and sex-typed women? Likewise, do

different contexts inhibit or magnify the differences

between males and females in walking style?

Next, we turn our attention to research on

blushing. The blush is most commonly caused by

unwanted social attention (Leary, Britt, Cutlip, &

Templeton, 1992), and it generally emerges as a reac-

tion to situations that elicit “self-conscious” emo-

tions, such as embarrassment, guilt, and shame.

Women are thought to be more susceptible to blush-

ing than men, but experimental research has not

been consistent on this count (Drummond, 2013).

For example, Shearn, Spellman, Straley, Meirick,

and Stryker (1999) found no signiﬁcant difference

in the blushing reactions of men and women in an

experiment in which they watched video clips of their

friends or strangers or themselves singing (the last sit-

uation frequently used to trigger blushing responses).

However, some self-report studies have found that

women report blushing more than men report doing

so (Bögels, Alberts, & de Jong, 1996; Neto, 1996)

There is also some evidence that females show

more “coyness blushing” in a courting context (von

Hooff, 2013), but again empirical veriﬁcation has

been slight. Future research examining actual blush-

ing reactions as well as self-reported blushing propen-

sity across different life stages might reveal interesting

ﬁndings. For example, as is the case with smiling, it

is possible that gender differences in blushing might

vary with age, being slim in childhood, largest in ado-

lescence, and relatively less pronounced in adulthood.

In closing, we turn to crying, where research on

gender differences has been relatively more extensive

than that for either gait or blushing. To begin with,

there is abundant data attesting to the ubiquitous

stereotype of the tearful woman versus the stoic man

(Vingerhoets, 2013). Furthermore, studies focusing

on the relationship between biological gender and

actual weeping show that women cry more frequently

than men do (for reviews, see Bekker & Vingerhoets,

1999, 2001; Vingerhoets & Scheirs, 2000). This sex

difference is consistent across several cultures where

it has been studied, even though the magnitude of

the difference varies with the particular culture being

observed (Becht, Poortinga, & Vingerhoets, 2001).

With respect to babies and young children, how-

ever, the results are mixed as to whether a sex dif-

ference exists in the ﬁrst years of life (Vingerhoets,

2013). In fact, some data suggest that boys show a

higher frequency of crying than girls and that it is

not until 8 years of age that girls show the pattern

of more crying than boys. Just why this divergence

happens has been the subject of considerable debate,

with some contending that boys are discouraged

from crying after childhood, and others arguing that

girls develop tearful crying because of its beneﬁts

(Vingerhoets, 2013).

Gender, Nonverbal Behavior,

and Flirtation

Heterosexual courtship interactions in Western cul-

ture involve a complex set of nonverbal behaviors by

both sexes that are tightly and relationally scripted.

Both sexes use nonverbal cues to signal sexual inter-

est to potential romantic or sexual partners, and

both engage in decoding practices to try to read the

nonverbal cues that potentially signal the interest

of another person. The whole nonverbal repertoire

Gender and Nonverbal Behavior

153

is used in ﬂirtation–gaze, smile facial expression,

interpersonal distance, body orientation and pos-

ture, gestures, and touch. Depending on timing and

sequence, nonverbal cues can communicate aware-

ness, openness, and desire (or their opposites). As

such, the critical dimension in ﬂirtation situations

is not so much how much a nonverbal behavior is

displayed but that it is displayed and shown in close

temporal proximity to other cues.

Although the stereotype of heterosexual ﬂirta-

tion often suggests that the male is the one to ini-

tiate interaction, nonverbal researchers contend

that women perform the early nonverbal signaling

(Grammer, Kruck, Juette, & Fink, 2000). Females

have been characterized as “selectors” who attract

attention by displaying openness to interaction via

laughing, head tossing, grooming behaviors, self-

touching or caressing objects, and bodily keeping

time to music (Guéguen, 2008; Scheﬂen, 1965). In

particular, researchers have identiﬁed women’s coy

smiles (half a smile accompanied by either down-

ward facing eyes or darting eye contact) as especially

ﬂirtatious (Moore, 1995). Men, in turn, are more

likely than women to actively approach a woman

in response to her nonverbal cues (Grammer et al.,

2000). In short, a successful ﬂirtation is marked by

a coordinated and reciprocated sequence of each

party’s nonverbal behavior with that of the other.

The consensus then is that women are more

active in their use of nonverbal cues to communi-

cate romantic interest to men in the ﬁrst stages of

ﬂirting rather than the other way around (Moore,

2010). However, the displayed nonverbal behaviors

are more likely to be subtle so that, if necessary,

both parties can subsequently deny that that there

was ever any communication of interest. In fact

this female subtlety is so understated or ambigu-

ous at times that researchers ﬁnd that both males

and females are more accurate at deciphering when

a man is being ﬂirtatious than when a woman is

(Grammer et al., 2000; Place et al., 2009).

Fewer studies have focused on men’s nonverbal

behavior in a ﬂirting context (J. A. Hall & Gun-

nery, 2013). Renninger, Wade, and Grammer (2004)

found that men who engage in brief, darting eye

contact, as well as moving among locations fre-

quently, touching other men (without being touched

in return), and exhibiting expansive body postures,

were more likely to make contact with a ﬂirting

female than men who engaged in fewer of these

nonverbal behaviors. Thus, whereas the nonverbal

behavior of women conveys interest in a subtle way

in a heterosexual situation, reﬂecting

the belief that women are more receptive than they

are active parties in a courtship, the nonverbal

behavior of men signals assertiveness, in accord with

scripts prescribing that men take a more active role

in courtship. However, behaviors by both sexes are

necessary for the interaction to be a successful one.

Once contact is established between ﬂirting

partners, men and women tend to differ in the

way they use touch to communicate interest and to

escalate the interaction. Women continue to self-

touch more than men do, and they also touch

their partner in brief and casual ways that are

perceived to communicate playfulness and affection

(McCormick & Jones, 1989). Men, in contrast, tend

to touch more intimately and for longer durations,

and their touches are perceived as more strongly

sexual (McCormick & Jones, 1989).

Remaining Questions

Future research needs to examine how ﬂirting

behavior is managed among gay and lesbian couples.

It is also likely that psychological gender (i.e., mas-

culinity/femininity) affects ﬂirting behavior. More

feminine heterosexual women might employ the

subtlest nonverbal cues to signal interest to potential

partners, whereas more androgynous women might

take a relatively more direct approach. Similarly,

more feminine lesbian women might favor ﬂirting

behaviors different from those preferred by more

androgynous lesbians. For gay men, it is possible

that ﬂirting behavior might involve less subtle cues

and a more direct approach, especially in safe con-

texts where gay identiﬁcation is assumed (e.g., gay

nightclubs). Clearly, the situation will dictate which

scripts are more likely.

CONCLUSIONS

Viewed through a gender lens, a review of the non-

verbal communication literature shows that gender

matters, although neither simply nor robustly.

LaFrance and Vial

154

The research literature on encoding and decod-

ing accuracy, smiling and gazing, touch and body

orientation, posture and gesture, gait, blushing,

and weeping shows that gender is moderately

implicated when predictions are made about the

frequency of various nonverbal behaviors. None-

theless, gender needs to be considered as a multi-

dimensional construct rather than a stand-in for

simple sex differences.

For one thing, psychological gender may be

more critical than biological gender. In other

words, nonverbal behaviors may often be telltale

indicators of femininity and masculinity rather

than manifestations of biological femaleness and

maleness. The critical issue may thus be the degree

to which any male or female personally subscribes

to societal deﬁnitions of masculinity and feminin-

ity. In some cases, psychological gender dovetails

with biological gender. Such would occur when a

biological male or biological female strongly iden-

tiﬁes with the tenets of masculinity and feminin-

ity, respectively. The conﬂuence of sex and gender

might be mistakenly taken as evidence of biological

gender effects when the pivotal factor is actually

consistency between psychological gender and

biological gender. To the degree to which individu-

als do not strongly identify with societal gender

norms, then we would expect less clear nonverbal

differentiation between the sexes in one or more

nonverbal behaviors.

Another aspect of the multidimensional nature

of gender is the recognition that demands to

behave in a gendered way are themselves variable.

Sometimes gender differences are manifestly

evident because the current situation induces

participants to respond with gender-differentiated

behavior. At other times, between-gender group

differences may be minimal. This does not mean

that the result nonverbal behavior is a random

ﬂuctuation—now you see it, now you do not—but

rather that aspects of the situation make gender

salient or negligible or somewhere in between.

In the ﬁrst case, we expect gender differences to

be magniﬁed; in the second case, factors other

than gender affect the amount of observed non-

verbal behavior, and subject gender recedes as an

inﬂuential factor.

As a number of researchers have noted,

not only is the impact of gender highly vari-

able across situations but also that individuals

are themselves highly variable in terms of their

sensitivity to gender demands (Deaux & Major,

1987). This has the effect of producing substan-

tial within-sex variation in nonverbal display.

Depending on the circumstances, this means that

within-gender variation may exceed between-

gender variation, causing sex differences at the

group level to be minimal. At other times, gender

demands may be so salient that a substantial

proportion of women and men comply with what

they know to be the default patterns of gendered

nonverbal behavior.

As Table 6.1 reveals, gender seldom operates

alone in affecting the amount of observed non-

verbal behavior in women and men. Take smil-

ing for example. The data do show that women

smile more on average than men. However, the

data also indicate that the size of this effect cova-

ries with a number of factors. Age is one of these

moderators. Adolescents and young adults show

a clear gender pattern, with females out-smiling

males; however, among middle-age and older

adults, this sex difference all but disappears.

In similar fashion, the presence of social ten-

sion magnifies the gender difference in smiling.

Women smile more than men when the atmo-

sphere is tense, but that difference is significantly

reduced when the atmosphere is relaxed. In short,

individual differences and situational variations

affect the degree to which gender differences in

nonverbal behaviors are found.

One goal of the present review was to determine

whether women and men differ in their nonverbal

behavior. We looked for the presence and degree

of a gender difference across a range of nonverbal

behaviors and found a number of modest to moder-

ate effects. However, another goal of the present

review was to consider whether a series of variables

might help explain when such differences appear

and recede. Here, there was substantial evidence

that gender-marked nonverbal cues, far from

being ﬁxed and stable, are malleable and ﬂexible,

responsive to even small changes in the social and

psychological environment.

Gender and Nonverbal Behavior

155

References

Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., & Conner, B. (1999).

Accuracy of judgments of sexual orientation from

thin slices of behavior. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 77, 538–547. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.538

Andersen, P. A., & Leibowitz, K. (1978). The development

and nature of the construct touch avoidance.

Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 3,

89–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01135607

Anderson, K. J., & Leaper, C. (1998). Meta-analyses of

gender effects on conversational interruption: Who,

what, when, where, and how. Sex Roles,

39, 225–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/

A:1018802521676

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay

on psychology and religion. Oxford, England: Rand

McNally.

Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., &

Plumb, I. (2001). The “Reading the Mind in the

Eyes” Test Revised Version: A study with normal

adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or

high-functioning autism. Journal of Child Psychology

and Psychiatry, 42, 241–251. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1111/1469-7610.00715

TABLE 6.1

Gender Differences in Nonverbal Behavior

Nonverbal behavior/domain Gender difference Moderator(s)

Encoding accuracy W > M Age; channel (facial vs. vocal)

Decoding accuracy W > M Cue ambiguity; ﬂirting context; target gender; speciﬁc

emotion expressed

Smiling W > M Age; context (instrumental vs. expressive task; social

tension); psychological gender; country; race

Gaze (general) W < M Gender composition of dyad; psychological gender

Visual dominanceaW < M Power mindset/status

Other-touch W > M Age; relationship type; gender composition of dyad;

type of touch (e.g., hand vs. nonhand)

Self-touch W > M

Interpersonal distance W < M Target gender

Orient body toward partner W > M Flirting context

Posture mirroring W > M Psychological gender; gender composition of dyad

Body restlessness, ﬁdgeting W < M

Back-channel responsesbW > M

Hand gesturing W > M

Forward leaning W > M

Expansive body posturing W < M

Restricted body posturing W > M

Speech loudness W < M

Speech disturbances W < M

Volubility W < M Power mindset/status

Intrusive interruptions W < M Group versus dyadic context; gender composition of group

or dyad; relationship type; context (instrumental vs.

expressive task); psychological gender

Filled pauses W < M Context (instrumental vs. expressive task);

psychological gender

Hip sway W > M

Shoulder swagger W < M Sexual orientation

Blushing (general) W = M

“Coyness” blushing W > M

Crying frequency W > M Age

Note. W = women; M = men.

aGazing more at an interaction partner while speaking than while listening. bUsed to convey that one is actively listening

to an interaction partner, such as uttering “hmm” in reaction to a speaker’s statement.

LaFrance and Vial

156

Barrett, L. F., Robin, L., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Eyssell,

K. M. (1998). Are women the “more emotional”

sex? Evidence from emotional experiences in social

context. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 555–578.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026999398379565

Becht, M. C., Poortinga, Y. H., & Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M.

(2001). Crying across countries. In A. J. J. M.

Vingerhoets & R. R. Cornelius (Eds.), Adult crying:

A biopsychosocial approach (pp. 135–158). Hove,

England: Brunner-Routledge.

Bekker, M. H. J., & Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M. (1999).

Adam’s tears: The relationship between crying,

biological sex, and gender. Psychology, Evolution, and

Gender, 1, 11–31.

Bekker, M. H. J., & Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M. (2001). Male

and female tears: Swallowing versus shedding?

The relationship between crying, biological sex,

and gender. In A. J. J. M. Vingerhoets & R. R.

Cornelius (Eds.), Adult crying: A biopsychosocial

approach (pp. 91–113). Hove, England: Brunner-

Routledge.

Bem, S. L. (1977). On the utility of alternative procedures

for assessing psychological androgyny. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 196–205.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.45.2.196

Bente, G., Donaghy, W. C., & Suwelack, D. (1998).

Sex differences in body movement and visual

attention: An integrated analysis of movement

and gaze in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of

Nonverbal Behavior, 22, 31–58. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1023/A:1022900525673

Bögels, S. M., Alberts, M., & de Jong, P. J. (1996).

Self-consciousness, self-focused attention, blushing

propensity, and fear of blushing. Personality and

Individual Differences, 21, 573–581. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/0191-8869(96)00100-6

Boyatzis, C. J., Chazan, E., & Ting, C. Z. (1993).

Preschool children’s decoding of facial emotions.

Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154, 375–382.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1993.10532190

Brescoll, V. L. (2011). Who takes the ﬂoor and why:

Gender, power, and volubility in organizations.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 622–641.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0001839212439994

Briton, N. J., & Hall, J. A. (1995). Beliefs about female

and male nonverbal communication. Sex Roles, 32,

79–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01544758

Brody, L. (1999). Gender, emotion, and the family.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brooks, A., Schouten, B., Troje, N. F., Verfaillie, K.,

Blanke, O., & van der Zwan, R. (2008). Correlated

changes in perceptions of the gender and orientation

of ambiguous biological motion ﬁgures. Current

Biology, 18, R728–R729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

j.cub.2008.06.054

Buck, R. (1977). Nonverbal communication of affect in

preschool in children: Relationships with personality

and skin conductance. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 35, 225–236. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.225

Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Yap, A. J. (2010).

Power posing: Brief nonverbal displays affect

neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance.

Psychological Science, 21, 1363–1368. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1177/0956797610383437

Carroll, L., & Gilroy, P. J. (2002). Role of appearance

and nonverbal behaviors in the perception of

sexual orientation among lesbians and gay men.

Psychological Reports, 91, 115–122. http://dx.doi.

org/10.2466/pr0.2002.91.1.115

Chan, M., Rogers, K. H., Parisotto, K. L., & Biesanz, J. C.

(2011). Forming ﬁrst impressions: The role of gender

and normative accuracy in personality perception.

Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 117–120. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.001

Connellan, J., Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Batki,

A., & Ahluwalia, J. (2000). Sex differences in human

neonatal social perception. Infant Behavior and

Development, 23, 113–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

S0163-6383(00)00032-1

Custrini, R. J., & Feldman, R. S. (1989). Children’s

social competence and nonverbal encoding and

decoding of emotions. Journal of Clinical Child

Psychology, 18, 336–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/

s15374424jccp1804_7

Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into

context: An interactive model of gender-related

behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.369

Derlega, V. J., Catanzaro, D., & Lewis, R. J. (2001).

Perceptions about tactile intimacy in same-sex and

opposite-sex pairs based on research participants’

sexual orientation. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,

2, 124–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.

2.2.124

DeSantis, M., Mohan, P. J., & Steinhorst, R. K. (2005).

Smiling in photographs: Childhood similarities

between sexes become differences constant in

adulthood. Psychological Reports, 97, 651–665.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.97.2.651-665

DiBiase, R., & Gunnoe, J. (2004). Gender and culture

differences in touching behavior. Journal of Social

Psychology, 144, 49–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/

SOCP.144.1.49-62

Dodd, D. K., Russell, B. L., & Jenkins, C. (1999). Smiling

in school yearbook photos: Gender differences from

kindergarten to adulthood. Psychological Record, 49,

543–554.

Dodge, K. A., Gilroy, F. D., & Fenzel, L. M. (1995).

Requisite management characteristics revisited:

Gender and Nonverbal Behavior

157

Two decades later. Journal of Social Behavior and

Personality, 10, 253–264.

Dovidio, J. F., Ellyson, S. L., Keating, C. F., Heltman,

K., & Brown, C. E. (1988). The relationship of

social power to visual displays of dominance

between men and women. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 54, 233–242. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.233

Drummond, P. D. (2013). Psychophysiology of the

blush. In W. R. Crozier & P. J. De Jong (Eds.),

The psychological signiﬁcance of the blush

(pp. 15–38). Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.

Ellyson, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., & Brown, C. E. (1992).

The look of power: Gender differences and

similarities in visual dominance behavior. In C.

Ridgeway (Ed.), Gender and interaction: The role of

microstructures in inequality (pp. 50–80). New York,

NY: Springer-Verlag.

Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., Goldsmith, H. H., &

Van Hulle, C. A. (2006). Gender differences in

temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychological

Bulletin, 132, 33–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

0033-2909.132.1.33

Farris, C., Treat, T. A., Viken, R. J., & McFall, R. M.

(2008). Sexual coercion and the misperception of

sexual intent. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 48–66.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2007.03.002

Fichten, C. S., Tagalakis, V., Judd, D., Wright,

J., & Amsel, R. (1992). Verbal and nonverbal

communication cues in daily conversations and

dating. Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 751–769.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1992.9712105

Fischer, A. H. (1993). Sex differences in

emotionality: Fact or stereotype? Feminism

and Psychology, 3, 303–318. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1177/0959353593033002

Fuchs, D., & Thelen, M. H. (1988). Children’s expected

interpersonal consequences of communicating their

affective state and reported likelihood of expression.

Child Development, 59, 1314–1322.

Grammer, K., Kruck, K., Juette, A., & Fink, B. (2000).

Non-verbal behavior as courtship signals: The role

of control and choice in selecting partners. Evolution

and Human Behavior, 21, 371–390. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00053-2

Guéguen, N. (2008). The effect of a woman’s smile

on a men’s courtship behavior. Social Behavior

and Personality, 36, 1233–1236. http://dx.doi.

org/10.2224/sbp.2008.36.9.1233

Hall, E. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NY:

Doubleday.

Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal

cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 845–857. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.85.4.845

Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal gender differences:

Communication accuracy and expressive style.

Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.

Hall, J. A. (2011). Gender and status patterns in social

touch. In M. Hertenstein (Ed.), The handbook

of touch: Neuroscience, behavioral, and health

perspectives (pp. 329–350). New York, NY: Springer.

Hall, J. A., Carney, D. R., & Murphy, N. A. (2002).

Gender differences in smiling. In M. H. Abel (Ed.),

An empirical reﬂection on the smile (pp. 155–185).

New York, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.

Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal

behavior and the vertical dimension of social

relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,

131, 898–924. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

0033-2909.131.6.898

Hall, J. A., & Gunnery, S. D. (2013). Gender

differences in nonverbal communication. In

J. A. Hall & M. L. Knapp (Eds.), Nonverbal

communication (pp. 639–669). http://dx.doi.

org/10.1515/9783110238150.639

Hall, J. A., & Matsumoto, D. (2004). Gender differences

in judgments of multiple emotions from facial

expressions. Emotion, 4, 201–206. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1037/1528-3542.4.2.201

Hall, J. A., Murphy, N. A., & Schmid Mast, M. (2006).

Recall of nonverbal cues: Exploring a new deﬁnition

of interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Nonverbal

Behavior, 30, 141–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/

s10919-006-0013-3

Hall, J. A., & Schmid Mast, M. (2008). Are women always

more interpersonally sensitive than men? Impact

of goals and content domain. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 34, 144–155. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1177/0146167207309192

Hall, J. A., & Veccia, E. M. (1990). More “touching”

observations: New insights on men, women, and

interpersonal touch. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 59, 1155–1162. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1155

Hanzal, A., Segrin, C., & Dorros, S. M. (2008). The role

of marital status and age on men’s and women’s

reactions to touch from relational partner. Journal

of Nonverbal Behavior, 32, 21–35. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1007/s10919-007-0039-1

Haselton, M. G., & Nettle, D. (2006). The paranoid

optimist: An integrative evolutionary model of

cognitive biases. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 10, 47–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/

s15327957pspr1001_3

Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription:

How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent

up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social

Issues, 57, 657–674. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/

0022-4537.00234

LaFrance and Vial

158

Helweg-Larsen, M., Cunningham, S. J., Carrico, A., &

Pergram, A. M. (2004). To nod or not to nod: An

observational study of nonverbal communication

and status in female and male college students.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 358–361. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00152.x

Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and

nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Hertenstein, M. J., & Keltner, D. (2011). Gender and the

communication of emotion via touch. Sex Roles, 64,

70–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9842-y

Heslin, R., Nguyen, T. D., & Nguyen, M. L. (1983).

Meaning of touch: The case of touch from a stranger

or same sex person. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 7,

147–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00986945

Hess, U., Adams, R. B., Jr., Grammer, K., & Kleck, R.

E. (2009). Face gender and emotion expression:

Are angry women more like men? Journal of Vision,

9(12), 19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/9.12.19

Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed heart:

Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Ickes, W., Gesn, P. R., & Graham, T. (2000). Gender

differences in empathic accuracy: Differential ability

or differential motivation? Personal Relationships, 7,

95–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.

tb00006.x

Izard, C. E. (1971). The face of emotion. New York, NY:

Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Johnson, K. L., Gill, S., Reichman, V., & Tassinary, L. G.

(2007). Swagger, sway, and sexuality: Judging sexual

orientation from body motion and morphology.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

93, 321–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.93.3.321

Johnson, K. L., & Tassinary, L. G. (2005). Perceiving

sex directly and indirectly: Meaning in motion and

morphology. Psychological Science, 16, 890–897.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01633.x

Kerrigan, D. C., Todd, M. K., & Croce, U. D. (1998).

Gender differences in joint biomechanics during

walking: Normative study in young adults. American

Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,

77, 2–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00002060-

199801000-00002

Kite, M. E., Deaux, K., & Haines, E. L. (2008). Gender

stereotypes. In F. L. Denmark & M. A. Paludi

(Eds.), Psychology of women: A handbook of issues

and theories (2nd ed., pp. 205–236). Westport, CT:

Praeger.

Knapp, M. L., & Hall, J. A. (2010). Nonverbal

communication in human interaction (7th ed.). Boston,

MA: Wadsworth.

Kneidinger, L. M., Maple, T. L., & Tross, S. A.

(2001). Touching behavior in sport: Functional

components, analysis of sex differences,

and ethological considerations. Journal of

Nonverbal Behavior, 25, 43–62. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1023/A:1006785107778

Kring, A. M., & Gordon, A. H. (1998). Sex differences in

emotion: Expression, experience, and physiology.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

74, 686–703. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.74.3.686

La France, B. H., Henningsen, D. D., Oates, A., &

Shaw, C. M. (2009). Social-sexual interactions?

Meta-analyses of sex differences in perceptions of

ﬂirtatiousness, seductiveness, and promiscuousness.

Communication Monographs, 76, 263–285.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637750903074701

LaFrance, M., & Banaji, M. (1992). Toward a

reconsideration of the gender–emotion relationship.

Emotion and Social Behavior, 14, 178–201.

LaFrance, M., & Carmen, B. (1980). The nonverbal

display of psychological androgyny. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 36–49.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.1.36

LaFrance, M., Hecht, M. A., & Paluck, E. L. (2003). The

contingent smile: A meta-analysis of sex differences

in smiling. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 305–334.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.305

LaFrance, M., & Ickes, W. (1981). Posture mirroring and

interactional involvement: Sex and sex typing effects.

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 5, 139–154. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00986131

Leaper, C., & Ayres, M. M. (2007). A meta-

analytic review of gender variations in adults’

language use: Talkativeness, afﬁliative speech,

and assertive speech. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 11, 328–363. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1177/1088868307302221

Leaper, C., & Robnett, R. D. (2011). Women are

more likely than men to use tentative language,

aren’t they? A meta-analysis testing for gender

differences and moderators. Psychology of

Women Quarterly, 35, 129–142. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1177/0361684310392728

Leary, M. R., Britt, T. W., Cutlip, W. D., II, & Templeton,

J. L. (1992). Social blushing. Psychological Bulletin,

112, 446–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-

2909.112.3.446

Lerner, H. G. (1985). The dance of anger. New York, NY:

Harper & Row.

Letzring, T. D. (2010). The effects of judge-target

gender and ethnicity similarity on the accuracy of

personality judgments. Social Psychology, 41, 42–51.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000007

Gender and Nonverbal Behavior

159

Lutchmaya, S., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2002). Human

sex differences in social and non-social looking

preferences, at 12 months of age. Infant Behavior and

Development, 25, 319–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

S0163-6383(02)00095-4

Major, B., Schmidlin, A. M., & Williams, L. (1990).

Gender patterns in social touch: The impact

of setting and age. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology. 58, 634–643. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.634

McClure, E. B. (2000). A meta-analytic review of sex

differences in facial expression processing and their

development in infants, children, and adolescents.

Psychological Bulletin, 126, 424–453. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.424

McCormick, N. B., & Jones, A. J. (1989). Gender

differences in nonverbal ﬂirtation. Journal of Sex

Education and Therapy, 15, 271–282.

Merten, J. (2005). Culture, gender, and the recognition

of the basic emotions. Psychologia, 48, 306–316.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2117/psysoc.2005.306

Montemayor, R., & Flannery, D. J. (1989). A

naturalistic study of the involvement of children

and adolescents with their mothers and friends:

Developmental differences in expressive behavior.

Journal of Adolescent Research, 4, 3–14. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1177/074355488941001

Moore, M. M. (1995). Courtship signaling and

adolescents: “Girls just wanna have fun”? Journal

of Sex Research, 32, 319–328. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1080/00224499509551805

Moore, M. M. (2010). Human nonverbal courtship

behavior—A brief historical review. Journal

of Sex Research, 47, 171–180. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1080/00224490903402520

Narus, L. R., Jr., & Fischer, J. L. (1982). Strong but

not silent: A reexamination of expressivity in the

relationships of men. Sex Roles, 8, 159–168.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00287920

Neto, F. (1996). Correlates of social blushing. Personality

and Individual Differences, 20, 365–373. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/0191-8869(95)00180-8

Nguyen, M. L., Heslin, R., & Nguyen, T. D. (1975).

The meaning of touch: Sex and marital status

differences. Representative Research in Social

Psychology, 7, 13–18.

Nicholas, C. L. (2004). Gaydar: Eye-gaze as identity

recognition among gay men and lesbians. Sexuality

and Culture, 8, 60–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/

s12119-004-1006-1

Nigg, B. M., Fisher, V., & Ronsky, J. L. (1994). Gait

characteristics as a function of age and gender.

Gait and Posture, 2, 213–220. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/0966-6362(94)90106-6

Ozdemir, A. (2008). Shopping malls: Measuring

interpersonal distance under changing conditions

across cultures. Field Methods, 20, 226–248.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1525822X08316605

Place, S. S., Todd, P. M., Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B.

(2009). The ability to judge the romantic interest

of others. Psychological Science, 20, 22–26. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02248.x

Plant, E. A., Hyde, J. S., Keltner, D., & Devine, P. G.

(2000). The gender stereotyping of emotions.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 81–92. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb01024.x

Pollick, F. E., Kay, J. W., Heim, K., & Stringer, R. (2005).

Gender recognition from point-light walkers. Journal

of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception

and Performance, 31, 1247–1265. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.6.1247

Renninger, L. A., Wade, T. J., & Grammer, K.

(2004). Getting that female glance: Patterns and

consequences of male nonverbal behavior in

courtship contexts. Evolution and Human

Behavior, 25, 416–431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.006

Robinson, M. D., Johnson, J. T., & Shields, S. A. (1998).

The gender heuristic and the database: Factors

affecting the perception of gender-related differences

in the experience and display of emotions. Basic and

Applied Social Psychology, 20, 206–219. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1207/s15324834basp2003_3

Roese, N. J., Olson, J. M., Borenstein, M. N., Martin,

A., & Shores, A. L. (1992). Same-sex touching

behavior: The moderating role of homophobic

attitudes. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 249–259.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01462005

Rosenthal, R., Hall, J. A., DiMatteo, M. R., Rogers, P.

L., & Archer, D. (1979). Sensitivity to nonverbal

communication: The PONS test. Baltimore, MD:

Johns Hopkins University Press.

Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk

factor for women: The costs and beneﬁts of

counterstereotypical impression management.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

74, 629–645. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.74.3.629

Rule, N. O., Ambady, N., Adams, R. B., Jr., & Macrae, C.

N. (2008). Accuracy and awareness in the perception

and categorization of male sexual orientation. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1019–1028.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013194

Sasson, N. J., Pinkham, A. E., Richard, J., Hughett, P.,

Gur, R. E., & Gur, R. C. (2010). Controlling for

response biases clariﬁes sex and age differences

in facial affect recognition. Journal of Nonverbal

Behavior, 34, 207–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/

s10919-010-0092-z

LaFrance and Vial

160

Scheﬂen, A. E. (1964). The signiﬁcance of posture in

communication systems. Psychiatry: Journal for the

Study of Interpersonal Processes, 27, 316–331.

Scheﬂen, A. E. (1965). Quasi-courtship behavior in

psychotherapy. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of

Interpersonal Processes, 28, 245–257.

Scherer, K. R., Banse, R., & Wallbott, H. G. (2001).

Emotion inferences from vocal expression correlate

across languages and cultures. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 32, 76–92. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1177/0022022101032001009

Schmid Mast, M., & Sczesny, S. (2010). Gender, power,

and nonverbal behavior. In J. C. Chrisler & D.

R. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research

in psychology (pp. 411–425). http://dx.doi.

org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1465-1_20

Shearn, D., Spellman, L., Straley, B., Meirick, J., &

Stryker, K. (1999). Empathic blushing in friends

and strangers. Motivation and Emotion, 23, 307–316.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021342910378

Shields, S. (1987). Women, men, and the dilemma of

emotion. In P. Shaver & C. Hendrick (Eds.),

Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 7.

Sex and gender (pp. 229–251). Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage.

Shotland, R. L., & Craig, J. M. (1988). Can men and

women differentiate between friendly and sexually

interested behavior? Social Psychology Quarterly, 51,

66–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2786985

Smith, J. C. S., Vogel, D. L., Madon, S., & Edwards,

S. R. (2011). The power of touch: Nonverbal

communication within married dyads. Counseling

Psychologist, 39, 764–787. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1177/0011000010385849

Stier, D. S., & Hall, J. A. (1984). Gender differences in

touch: An empirical and theoretical review. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 440–459.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.2.440

Székely, E., Tiemeier, H., Arends, L. R., Jaddoe, V. W. V.,

Hofman, A., Verhulst, F. C., & Herba, C. M. (2011).

Recognition of facial expressions of emotions by

3-year-olds. Emotion, 11, 425–435. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1037/a0022587

Thomas, G., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (2003). Mind-reading

accuracy in intimate relationships: Assessing

the roles of the relationship, the target, and the

judge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

85, 1079–1094. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.85.6.1079

Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves:

Complementarity in dominant and submissive

nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 84, 558–568. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.558

Troje, N. F. (2002). Decomposing biological motion: A

framework for analysis and synthesis of human gait

patterns. Journal of Vision, 2(5), 2. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1167/2.5.2

Trommsdorff, G., & John, H. (1992). Decoding affective

communication in intimate relationships. European

Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 41–54. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1002/ejsp.2420220106

Vingerhoets, A. (2013). Why only humans weep:

Unravelling the mystery of tears. Oxford, England:

Oxford University Press.

Vingerhoets, A., & Scheirs, J. (2000). Gender

differences in crying: Empirical ﬁndings and

possible explanations. In A. H. Fisher (Ed.), Gender

and emotion: Social psychological perspectives

(pp. 143–165). http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/

CBO9780511628191.008

Vogt, D. S., & Colvin, C. R. (2003). Interpersonal

orientation and the accuracy of personality

judgments. Journal of Personality, 71, 267–295.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.7102005

von Hooff, J. A. R. A. M. (2013). Colors of the face: A

comparative glance. In W. R. Crpzzoer & P. J. De

Jong (Eds.), The psychological signiﬁcance of the

blush (pp. 77–99). Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.

Vrugt, A., & Luyerink, M. (2000). The contribution of

bodily posture to gender stereotypic impressions.

Social Behavior and Personality: An International

Journal, 28, 91–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/

sbp.2000.28.1.91

Wagner, H. L., MacDonald, C. J., & Manstead, A. S.

(1986). Communication of individual emotions by

spontaneous facial expressions. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 50, 737–743. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.737

Webbink, P. (1981). Nonverbal behavior and gay/lesbian

orientation. In C. Mayo & S. Henley (Eds.), Gender

and nonverbal behavior (pp. 253–259). http://dx.doi.

org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5953-4_12

Weisfeld, G. E., & Beresford, J. M. (1982). Erectness of

posture as an indicator of dominance or success in

humans. Motivation and Emotion, 6, 113–131.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00992459

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender.

Gender and Society, 1, 125–151. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1177/0891243287001002002

Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Measuring sex

stereotypes: A multination study (Rev. ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Williams, L. M., Mathersul, D., Palmer, D. M., Gur,

R. C., Gur, R. E., & Gordon, E. (2009). Explicit

identiﬁcation and implicit recognition of facial

emotions: I. Age effects in males and females across

Gender and Nonverbal Behavior

161

10 decades. Journal of Clinical and Experimental

Neuropsychology, 31, 257–277. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1080/13803390802255635

Willis, F. N., Jr., & Briggs, L. F. (1992). Relationship

and touch in public settings. Journal of Nonverbal

Behavior, 16, 55–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/

BF00986879

Willis, F. N., Jr., & Dodds, R. A. (1998). Age,

relationship, and touch initiation. Journal of

Social Psychology, 138, 115–123. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1080/00224549809600359

Willis, F. N., Jr., & Rawdon, V. A. (1994). Gender and

national differences in attitudes toward same-gender

touch. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 1027–1034.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1994.78.3.1027

Wondergem, T. R., & Friedlmeier, M. (2012). Gender

and ethnic differences in smiling: A yearbook

photographs analysis from kindergarten through

12th grade. Sex Roles, 67, 403–411. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1007/s11199-012-0158-y

Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., Urbanek, M., Chang, F., &

Merget, D. (2007). The unbearable likeness of being

digital: The persistence of nonverbal social norms in

online virtual environments. CyberPsychology and

Behavior, 10, 115–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/

cpb.2006.9984

Zuckerman, M., DeFrank, R. S., Spiegel, N. H., &

Larrance, D. T. (1982). Masculinity–femininity and

encoding of nonverbal cues. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 42, 548–556. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.3.548

Sound Feedback for Social Distance: The Case for Public Interventions During a Pandemic

Preprint

May 2022

Within the field of movement sensing and sound interaction research, multi-user systems have gradually gained interest as a means to facilitate an expressive non-verbal dialogue. When tied with studies grounded in psychology and choreographic theory, we consider the qualities of interaction that foster an elevated sense of social connectedness, non-contingent to occupying one’s personal space. In reflection of the newly adopted social distancing concept, we orchestrate a technological intervention, starting with interpersonal distance and sound at the core of interaction. Materialised as a set of sensory face-masks, a novel wearable system was developed and tested in the context of a live public performance from which we obtain the user’s individual perspectives and correlate this with patterns identified in the recorded data. We identify and discuss traits of the user’s behaviour that were accredited to the system’s influence and construct 4 fundamental design considerations for physically distanced sound interaction. The study concludes with essential technical reflections, accompanied by an adaptation for a pervasive sensory intervention that’s finally deployed in an open public space.

Arousing interest and curiosity in initial dyadic interactions: verbal and nonverbal behaviours in a contemporary media dating context

Chapter

Full-text available

Jan 2020

Oleksandra Romaniuk

A communicative hook contributes to positive romantic outcomes in initial dyadic interactions in a contemporary media dating context. The focus of the current research was on how the communicative goal “to arouse interest and curiosity” is achieved through the combination of verbal and nonverbal behaviours employed by the opposite-sex perfect strangers. The communicative cook was defined as coded message/information + addressee’s wish to receive an answer that immediately arouses interest and curiosity of a potential partner. For this study, the communicative hooks enacted by the female contestants (N = 189) on the dating show The Bachelor US (2012–2018) during initial romantic interactions with the single bachelors were analysed. Verbal behaviour of the communicative hook was expressed by the following verbal cues: Continuation of Relationship, Self-Presentation, Compliment, Profession, Self-Praise, Emotional State, Place of Residence, Identification, and Family. The most relevant nonverbal cues implemented within the communicative hook were as follows: head tilt, nodding, delivery gestures, upright posture, trunk leaning forward, holding hands in front of the body, hand-in-hand, hug, kiss, happiness, surprise, mutual gaze (forehead bow), gaze down, eyebrow flash. They enabled a potential partner to draw inferences about bachelorettes’ true intentions. Mastering verbal communication skills and not misinterpreting or ignoring partners’ nonverbal messages could maximize the efficiency of the communicative hook. These findings could have general implications for theorizing on changing social and cultural standards, gender stereotypes, and traditional gender roles in intimate relationships. They could also contribute a great deal to the study of reality TV.

Sound Feedback for Social Distance: The Case for Public Interventions During a Pandemic

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2022

Within the field of movement sensing and sound interaction research, multi-user systems have gradually gained interest as a means to facilitate an expressive non-verbal dialogue. When tied with studies grounded in psychology and choreographic theory, we consider the qualities of interaction that foster an elevated sense of social connectedness, non-contingent to occupying one’s personal space. Upon reflection of the newly adopted social distancing concept, we orchestrate a technological intervention, starting with interpersonal distance and sound at the core of interaction. Materialised as a set of sensory face-masks, a novel wearable system was developed and tested in the context of a live public performance from which we obtain the user’s individual perspectives and correlate this with patterns identified in the recorded data. We identify and discuss traits of the user’s behaviour that were accredited to the system’s influence and construct four fundamental design considerations for physically distanced sound interaction. The study concludes with essential technical reflections, accompanied by an adaptation for a pervasive sensory intervention that is finally deployed in an open public space.

Explaining Symmetry Across Sex in Intimate Partner Violence: Evolution, Gender Roles, and the Will to Harm

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2020

John Hamel

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is regarded by key stakeholders involved in shaping arrest and intervention policies as a gendered problem. The prevailing assumptions guiding these policies, centered on patriarchal social structures and men's motivation to dominate their female partners, have collectively been called the gender paradigm . When states started to enact laws against domestic violence in the late 1970s, it was due to the efforts of battered women and their allies, including second wave feminists fighting for the political, social, and economic advancement of women. The focus was on life-threatening forms of abuse in which women represented, and continue to represent, the much larger share of victims. Since then, IPV has been found to be a more complex problem than originally framed, perpetrated by women as well as men, driven by an assortment of motives, and associated with distal and proximate risk factors that have little to do with gender. Nonetheless, the gender paradigm persists, with public policy lagging behind the empirical evidence. The author suggests some reasons why this is so, among them the much higher rates of violent crimes committed by men, media influence and cognitive biases, political factors, and perpetuation of the very sex-role stereotypes that feminists have sought to extinguish in every other social domain. He then critically reviews two theories used in support of the paradigm, sexual selection theory and social role theory, and explores how empirically driven policies would more effectively lower IPV rates in our communities, while advancing core feminist principles.

Emotional Experiences in the Workplace: Biological Sex, Supervisor Nonverbal Behaviors, and Subordinate Susceptibility to Emotional Contagion

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2021

This study aims to investigate the relationship among different types of supervisor nonverbal behaviors, subordinate susceptibility to emotional contagion, and subordinate emotional experience. It also examined the possible interaction effects of nonverbal behaviors, emotional contagion, and both supervisor and subordinate biological sex. N = 669 full-time employees participated in an online survey. Results suggest that supervisor eye contact, body posture and facial expression are associated with higher emotional support, whereas body and face would reduce subordinates’ engagement in emotion work. The interaction tests show that female supervisors’ use of gesture has a stronger effect on subordinate perception of emotional support and emotion work than male supervisors. Findings are discussed as related to theoretical and practical contributions, as well as suggestions for future research on nonverbal communication and workplace emotions.

Toward a Notion of Embodiment: Gestures, Sign Language, and Sexuality

Article

Jul 2018

Rose Stamp

Signers employ different articulators of the body—hands, head, face, torso—to signal aspects of their social identities, including sexuality and gender. Yet few studies to date have integrated the study of social meaning in sign languages with the study of embodiment. This chapter presents an overview of two research fields and how they interconnect: sociolinguistic research on sexuality-indexed sign varieties used by deaf signers, and gestural research on the perception and production of sexual identity by hearing speakers. Although movement features by gay signers have traditionally been described as an aspect of gay sign variation, a comparison of movement features produced by signers of Israeli Sign Language to those produced by speakers of Hebrew suggests that deaf and hearing individuals may exploit similar movements of the body to index gay identities, regardless of language modality. The chapter therefore highlights the importance of a deeper consideration of embodiment when it comes to analyzing gender and sexuality in sign languages.

Heavier Lies Her Crown: Gendered Patterns of Leader Emotional Labor and Their Downstream Effects

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2022

Women use power in more prosocial ways than men and they also engage in more emotional labor (i.e., self-regulate their emotions to respond and attend to the needs and emotions of other people in a way that advances organizational goals). However, these two constructs have not been previously connected. We propose that gendered emotional labor practices and pressures result in gender differences in the prosocial use of power. We integrate the literature on emotional labor with research on the psychology of power to articulate three routes through which this happens. First, women may be more adept than men at the intrapersonal and interpersonal processes entailed in emotional labor practices—a skill that they can apply at all hierarchical levels. Second, given women’s stronger internal motivation to perform emotional labor, they construe power in a more interdependent manner than men, which promotes a more prosocial use of power. As a result, female powerholders tend to behave in more prosocial ways. Third, when they have power, women encounter stronger external motivation to engage in emotional labor, which effectively constrains powerful women’s behaviors in a way that fosters a more prosocial use of power. We discuss how, by promoting prosocial behavior among powerholders, emotional labor can be beneficial for subordinates and organizations (e.g., increase employee well-being and organizational trust), while simultaneously creating costs for individual powerholders, which may reduce women’s likelihood of actually attaining and retaining power by (a) making high-power roles less appealing, (b) guiding women toward less prestigious and (c) more precarious leadership roles, (d) draining powerful women’s time and resources without equitable rewards, and (e) making it difficult for women to legitimize their power in the eyes of subordinates (especially men). Thus, emotional labor practices can help explain the underrepresentation of women in top leadership positions.

Sound Feedback for Social Distance: The Case for Public Interventions During a Pandemic

Preprint

Full-text available

Jun 2022

First impression sexual scripts of romantic encounters: Effect of gender on verbal and non verbal immediacy behaviors in American media dating culture

Article

Jul 2021
J SOC PERS RELAT

The current study investigates sexual scripts in reality dating shows—in particular, how the gender of the communicator affects the choice of verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviors aimed at making a first impression. Data were drawn from 331 couples of opposite-sex heterosexual strangers interacting for approximately 30 seconds on two reality dating shows: The Bachelor and The Bachelorette (2012–2019). As a result, a codebook of verbal immediacy cues (N = 1623) and nonverbal immediacy cues (N = 3021) was derived. The findings showed that verbal behavior encompassed 11 categories of verbal immediacy cues, while nonverbal behavior included 32 categories of nonverbal immediacy cues. Results also showed gender-related preferences for verbal immediacy behavior; for instance, men were more likely to outline the probability of relationship development and pay compliments; conversely, women were prone to intriguing men to arouse curiosity and interest. As for nonverbal immediacy behavior, men were predisposed to use clothes straightening, while women tended to communicate immediacy through head tilt, shoulder shrug, gaze down, gaze side(s), eyebrow flashes, hand-in-hand, hug, pat, holding hands in front of their bodies, and hair grooming. Nonetheless, the similarities between men and women were found to be greater than the differences. These findings could have wide-reaching implications for theorizing on social and cultural norms, gender stereotypes, and traditional gender roles in intimate relationships in the form of sexual scripts, along with contributing to the study of reality television.

ROMANTIC MEDIA DISCOURSE: GENDER PREFERENCES FOR TOUCHING BEHAVIOUR

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2021

Oleksandra Romaniuk

The purpose is to analyze the influence of gender on touching behaviour in a mixed dyad within romantic media discourse. The comparative study demonstrates new insights into gender-neutral and gender-specific touch cues initiated by strangers in face-to-face romantic encounters. Methods. A hybrid approach (inductive and deductive) to thematic analysis was used to interpret codes of nonverbal immediacy cues. The thematic analysis covered six stages of the coding process resulted in deriving a codebook. Qualitative interactive sociolinguistic and quantitative analyses, as well as a method of statistical evaluation of hypotheses (Pearson’s chi-square test), were used to reveal the statistical evidence for touch cues functioning.Results. The sample consisted of 24 groups of touching behaviour, which included 557 feminine and 302 masculine touch cues. The identified nonverbal cues were grouped according to the focus of the object: self-focused (eight groups) and other person focused (sixteen groups). According to the results of the study, the expected gender differences were partially supported, considering the extent of the effect size. Gender-neutral touching behaviour includes eleven groups: four groups of self-focused (clothes straightening, holding hands in front of one’s body, hair grooming, holding hands behind one’s back) and seven groups of other person focused (hugs, hand-in-hand, handshake, kiss on the cheek, clap, dancing, arm link). Thirteen groups of touching behaviour were found to be gender-specific: four self-focused (clap – initiated only by men; hand(s) on the heart, face covering, lower lip biting – initiated only by women) and nine other person focused (hand kiss, lifting up a woman, selfie – initiated only by men; conversely, caress, kiss on lips, couple rubbing noses, shoulder massage, feeding a partner with one’s fingers, jumping into partner’s arms – initiated only by women).Conclusions. Comparative analysis of touching behaviour revealed that women tended to communicate the immediacy through hand-in-hand (φ = 0.35), hair grooming (φ = 0.28), hugs (φ = 0.23), holding hands in front of one’s body (φ = 0.18), pat (φ = 0.12), hand(s) on the heart, and face covering; while men were predisposed to use clothes straightening (φ = 0.1) and hand kiss; handshake and kiss on the cheek were initiated similarly by both genders. The obtained data are a prerequisite for further analysis of nonverbal behaviour initiated by opposite-sex strangers in the contemporary media dating context.Key words: nonverbal communication, face-to-face encounters, initiating romantic relationship, media context, dating culture, reality dating show, interpersonal interaction. Мета. Метою статті є аналіз впливу ґендеру на тактильну поведінку у змішаній діаді в рамках сучасного романтичного медіадискурсу на етапі ініціації романтичних відносин. Порівняльне дослідження демонструє нові уявлення про ґендерно-нейтральні і ґендерно-специфічні такесичні засоби комунікації, ініційовані комунікантами під час романтичного знайомства. Методи дослідження. Гібридний підхід (індуктивний і дедуктивний) до тематичного аналізу було застосовано для інтерпретації кодів невербальних засобів комунікації. Тематичний аналіз охоплював шість етапів кодування, за результатами якого було розроблено кодову книгу. Якісний інтерактивний соціолінгвістичний і кількісний аналіз, а також метод статистичної оцінки гіпотез (критерій хі-квадрат Пірсона) використовувались з метою розкриття статистичних закономірностей функціо-нування такесичних засобів комунікації. Результати. Вибірка дослідження становила 24 групи тактильної поведінки, до яких увійшли 557 зразків фемінних і 302 зразки маскулінних такесичних засобів комунікації. Виявлені засоби комунікації було згруповано відповідно до фокусу об’єкта на самоорієнтовані (8 груп) і контакто-орієнтовані (16 груп). За результатами дослідження очікувані ґендерні від-мінності були частково підтримані з урахуванням показника вагомості впливу. До ґендерно-нейтральних віднесено 11 груп такесичних засобів комунікації: 4 групи самоорієнтованих (розправляння одягу, тримання рук спереду, гра з волоссям, тримання рук за спиною) і 7 груп контакто-орієнтованих (інтимні обійми, рука в руці, рукостискання, поцілунок у щоку, обійми з поплескуванням, танець, тримання під руку). До ґендерно-специфічних віднесено 13 груп такесичних засобів комунікації: 4 групи самоорієнтованих (плескання в долоні – ініційовано лише чоловіками; рука на серці, закриття руками обличчя, покусування нижньої губи – ініційовано лише жінками) і 9 груп контакто-орієнтованих (поцілунок руки, здіймання жінки на руки, селфі – ініційовано лише чоловіками; ласка, поцілунок у губи, пестощі носами, масаж плечей, годування партнера з рук, стрибки на руки партнеру – ініційовано лише жінками).Висновки. Порівняльний аналіз встановив, що жінки надають перевагу руці в руці (φ = 0,35), грі з волоссям (φ = 0,28), інтимним обіймам (φ = 0,23), триманню рук спереду (φ = 0,18), обіймам з поплескуванням (φ = 0,12), руці на серці і закрит-тю руками обличчя; чоловіки надають перевагу розправлянню одягу (φ = 0,1) і поцілунку руки; тотожними є рукостискання і поцілунок у щоку. Отримані дані є передумовою для подальшого аналізу невербальних засобів комунікації, ініційованих під час первинної міжособистісної інтеракції в рамках романтичного медіадискурсу. Ключові слова:невербальна комунікація, знайомство віч-на-віч, ініціація романтичних відносин, медіапростір, дейтинг культура, реаліті дейтинг-шоу, міжособистісна інтеракція.

Nonverbal communication of affect in preschool children: Relationships with personality and skin conductance

Article

Full-text available

Apr 1977

Ross Buck

A slide-viewing paradigm measuring the tendency to communicate accurate nonverbal messages via spontaneous facial expressions and gestures was applied to 13 male and 11 female preschoolers (aged 4-6 yrs). Ss watched 16 emotionally loaded color slides while, unknown to them, their mothers viewed their reactions via TV. Ss' skin conductance (SC) was monitored during the experiment, and they had been rated by 2 teachers on a new scale of affect expression developed from H. E. Jones's (1935) externalizer/internalizer distinction. High communication accuracy was associated with low SC responding. Rated expressiveness was associated with high communication accuracy and low SC responding. Sex differences appeared in the pattern of relations between the affect expression scale and the measures of communication accuracy and SC response. Theoretical implications are discussed. (17 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).

Smiling in School Yearbook Photos: Gender Differences from Kindergarten to Adulthood

Article

Full-text available

Sep 1999
PSYCHOL REC

To explore the hypothesis that girls and women smile more frequently than boys and men, 16,514 photographs of students (kindergarten to college) from school yearbooks were studied, as were photos of faculty and staff members. The predicted gender difference in smiling was small and nonsignificant until Grade 4, when a statistically significant difference was first obtained. The gender difference reached its peak in grade 9 (effect size = .275) and remained relatively constant through adulthood. Systematic study of yearbook photos from one high school during the period 1968-1993 revealed no change in the gender difference over time. Discussion focused on the emergence of the smiling difference during preadolescence and the theoretical implications of such a finding.

Colours of the face: A comparative glance

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2009

Jan A.R.A.M. van Hooff

The blush is a ubiquitous yet little understood phenomenon which can be triggered by a number of self-conscious emotions such as shame, embarrassment, shyness, pride and guilt. The field of psychology has seen a recent surge in the research of such emotions, yet blushing remains a relatively neglected area. This unique volume brings together leading researchers from a variety of disciplines to review emerging research on the blush, discussing in depth issues that have arisen and stimulating new theorizing to indicate future directions for research. Topics covered include: the psychophysiology of the blush; developmental aspects; measurement issues; its evolutionary significance and the role of similar colour signals in the social life of other species; its relation to embarrassment, shame and social anxiety; and the rationale for, and clinical trials of, interventions to help people suffering from blushing phobia.

Why Only Humans Weep: Unravelling the mysteries of tears

Book

Feb 2013

Ad Vingerhoets

Male and female tears: Swallowing versus shedding? the relationship between crying, biological sex and gender

Article

Jan 2001

The Look of Power: Gender Differences and Similarities in Visual Dominance Behavior

Chapter

Jan 1992

The concept of social power has, at its core, the ability of one person to influence one or more others or to control the outcomes of others (Ellyson & Dovidio, 1985). Social power may stem from the information a person possesses (informational power), the position that a person occupies (legitimate power), the ability to administer favorable outcomes (reward power) or unfavorable outcomes (coercive power), or from the perception of being knowledgeable in the topic at hand (expert power) (French & Raven, 1959; Raven, 1974). These sources of social power may also be referred to as structural power (see Molm & Hedley, Chapter 1 in this volume). Sex is a characteristic that has traditionally been related to actual and perceived social power. In the United States, men disproportionately occupy positions of social, political, and economic power relative to women (Basow, 1986). In addition, gender stereotypes, in the United States and cross-culturally, characterize men as having greater potency, competence, and strength and associate men with higher status and more instrumental roles (Deaux, 1984; Williams & Best, 1986). This chapter examines the relationships among social power, gender, and human nonverbal power displays, particularly involving visual behavior.

Power Moves: Complementarity in Dominant and Submissive Nonverbal Behavior

Article

Mar 2003

Two studies examine complementarity (vs. mimicry) of dominant and submissive nonverbal behaviors. In the first study, participants interacted with a confederate who displayed either dominance (through postural expansion) or submission (through postural constriction). On average. participants exposed to a dominant confederate decreased their postural stance, whereas participants exposed to a submissive confederate increased their stance. Further, participants with complementing response,, (dominance in response to submission and submission in response to dominance) liked their partner more and were more comfortable than those who mimicked. In the second study, complementarity and mimicry were manipulated, and complementarity resulted in more liking and comfort than mimicry. The findings speak to the likelihood of hierarchical differentiation.

Nonverbal Behavior and Lesbian/Gay Orientation

Chapter

Jan 1981

Patricia G. Webbink

In societies like ours, where heterosexuality is enforced by a plethora of economic and cultural institutions, lesbians and gay men1 appear to constitute a minority. However, unlike other minorities that have easily identifiable features (e.g., skin color) to distinguish them from the dominant majority, lesbians and gay men are hidden. We come in all colors, ages, and sizes, and from all socioeconomic levels; we look like everybody else and we are everywhere. But, like other groups of people with a shared interest or shared oppression, we have developed our own subcultures. The lesbian and gay men’s cultures have their own language consisting of both verbal and nonverbal elements of expression and communication. The nonverbal cues range from general, more obvious ones such as dress, to specific, more subtle details of interaction such as eye contact and facial expression. These cues allow lesbians and gay men to recognize one another in a relatively unobtrusive manner necessary for a group whose identity has had to be concealed lest its members be endangered and ostracized. Using various kinds of clothing and jewelry has been an important way in which lesbians and gay men have made themselves visible to one another. Some gay men might wear an earring in one ear, or a colored handerchief in their back pocket. Recently, the “cowboy” and leathery, macho looks in clothing have become popular styles among many gay men (Fischer, 1977). Some lesbians wear two interlocking women’s symbols on a ring or necklace as a sign of their sexuality.

Psychophysiology of the blush

Article

Jan 2009

Peter D Drummond

In Darwin’s view, blushing was ‘the most peculiar and most human of all expressions’ (1872/1965, p. 309). However, over the past twenty-five years an accumulating body of programmatic research has begun to shed light on the psychophysiological mechanisms and emotional correlates of blushing. This research is reviewed below. Physiological mechanisms that may contribute to blushing Blushing refers to reddening of the face in emotionally charged situations, typically in association with feelings of embarrassment, guilt or shame. The reddening is due to an accumulation of red blood cells in the superficial venous plexus in the facial skin. This appears to involve an active dilatation of the arterial supply because vascular pulsations increase markedly during blushing (Figure 2.1). In addition, as facial veins are supplied with β-adrenoceptors (Mellander et al., 1982), a β-adrenergic mechanism that contributes to the dilatation of veins may increase their capacity to hold blood. The neural regulation of blood flow is more complex for the face than for most other regions of the body, because facial blood vessels supply the sensitive membranes of the eyes, nose and mouth in addition to the skin. Thus, broadly distributed sympathetic vasoconstrictor and dilator reflexes, locally distributed parasympathetic reflexes and vasodilator reflexes mediated by sensory nerves all influence facial blood flow. In addition, substances that arrive in the bloodstream (e.g., hormones, vasoactive peptides, dietary products and drugs), or that are produced locally by the vascular endothelium, add an extra level of control over facial blood flow. Potentially, each of these influences could contribute to blushing, although some of these influences clearly are more important than others.

Measuring Sensitivity to Nonverbal Communication: The PONS Test

Chapter

Dec 1979

Gender and Nonverbal Behavior

Abstract

Recommendations

book reviews

sex differences

gender differences in facial expression

expert systems

From the Dollhouse to the Schoolhouse: The Changing Experience of Women Principals in British Columb...

Women's Sex Roles in Their Public and Private Lives

"Man Points": Masculine Capital and Young Men's Health

Investigation of nonverbal discrimination against women in simulated initial job interviews