Overload of political issues, statements, and opinions made by candidates can send the average American into a tailspin. For many voters, heavy investigation of every detail about every candidate in a campaign is not of top-priority. “Many US voters’ lack political knowledge and interest in the political process, yet, large numbers of citizens still go to the polls” (Kopacz, 2006, pg. 7). Humans rely on non-verbal communication, in politics and in other situations of communication, as a tool for understanding the intended context of a message. (Kopacz, pg 14) In Maria Kopacz (2006), Nonverbal Communication as a Persuasion Tool: Current Status and Future Directions, the impact of nonverbal communication is explored, as it relates to electoral votes.
Members of the political field are well-known for their general reputation for being dishonest and manipulative, so it is easy to understand the implications of Kopacz (2006) assertion that “nonverbal displays inconsistent with accompanying verbal messages may signal deception” (as cited by Kopacz, pg 3). If one expects an individual in politics to be dishonest, they may look for non-verbal cues as a source of revealing dishonesty. So often, through television, where most Americans derive their campaign information, (Kopacz, pg. 4) voters are inundated with political commercials, or segments from campaigns, displaying internally conflicting information coming from political candidates. It seems that the right to change one’s mind is exercised thoroughly in elections resulting in the destruction of candidate’s credibility. “It’s no surprise that so many presidential candidates choose to use a “nonverbal consultant” to prepare for their big televised debates” (personal communication, P. Hamilton, October 13th, 2007). With the prominence of television as the basis for one’s decision to cast a vote for one candidate over another, “It becomes evident that nonverbal communication should be viewed as a critical aspect of the US political process” (Kopacz, pg. 4).
There are theories and models of persuasion based on nonverbal communication that are explored by Kopacz (2006). Among these models, the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion maintains that “there are two routes of information-processing that lead to judgment and attitude formation” (Kopacz, 2006, pg. 6). These routes are as follows: the central route which entails careful analysis of communication and often occurs when one is motivated and able to process information, and the peripheral route which is a low-effort way of processing information by way of “The characteristics of the message source” (Kopacz, pg. 6). This model of persuasion is the most relevant to exploring how nonverbal communication affect voters because, in the words of Kopacz, (2006) “None of the findings obtained by nonverbal research were inconsistent with the ELM framework” (Kopecz, pg. 12). The ELM, although not proving Kopacz (2006) assertion, acts as the umbrella for the other theories explored in this article.
Four other perspectives of nonverbal behavior were reviewed by Kopacz (2006) and include the following: Chance’s ethological theory of attention structure, Masters and Sullivan focus on facial gestures, Duck’s similarity theory, and Burgoon, Birk, and Pfau’s dominance-credibility theory. (Kopacz, pp. 4-5) Each of these theories analyzed, failed to completely support the idea that candidates’ nonverbal communication directly affects electoral votes.
To explore the above four theories further, Kopacz (2006), outlined four empirical findings, as they relate to each theory and the relevance to nonverbal displays and election outcomes. These findings include the importance of the following: facial expressions, physical appearance, paralanguage, and visual focus. (Kopacz, pp. 8-10) When referring to B.B. & P.’s dominance/credibility and Duck’s similarity theory, although not proven by researchers, Kopacz (2006) states that “assessment would be relatively easy to perform by means of self-report measures” (Kopacz, page 12). In my work experience, I have accepted offers of employment in the past for companies based on the dominance and credibility, as well as the similarities in personality and character traits, displayed by my potential superiors during the interviewing process.
I had to go through a series of interviews to obtain the position I currently hold. My third and final interview was with John, the president of the company. When I walked in, he took the time to greet me openly and look me directly in the eyes, actions that made me feel comfortable and confident in his credibility as a leader. Direct eye contact is an example of the importance of “gaze”(Kopacz-, 2006 pg. 11), a subpoint of the point of “visual focus” (Kopacz, pg. 10) in nonverbal communication. In a relatively short time, John also exemplified behaviors that made me feel as though we were similar, and this greatly affected my decision to join his team. Under the assumptions of Duck’s similarity theory, “People are especially likely to identify with amicable personalities, the hedonic (affiliative) behaviors like handshakes, smiles, and open body posture, may contribute…to success” (Kopacz, pg. 5).
The same important nonverbal behaviors outlined in Kopacz (2006) would be expected of any leader of a department, a company, or a nation. Since “Nonverbal decoding requires a different type of processing and perhaps less mental effort than does verbal communication,” (Kopacz, pg. 7) it can be assumed that nonverbal communication has been used by humans before the ability to speak. “Scholars demonstrate that it takes less time and effort to comprehend audiovisual messages, than is needed to comprehend verbal messages alone” (as cited in Kopacz, 2006 pg. 7). This would imply that nonverbal communication is of utmost importance when it comes to political campaigns and any other situation in business when judgment is involved.
In the 21st century, with technology expansion and new mediums for communication, the context of messages must be clarified to heighten understanding. If an individual is saying one thing with words, yet contradicting the meaning of their verbal message with nonverbal communication, instead of the intended message being communicated, deceitfulness is conveyed. It is the responsibility of every leader, especially a potential leader of our nation, to have the integrity to do what they say, and with the help of articles such as Kopacz (2006) regarding nonverbal communication, have the sense to make sure their nonverbal and verbal communication is in alignment with their intended meaning.
References
Kopacz, M. (2006). Nonverbal communication as a persuasion tool: Current status and future directions. Rocky Mountain Communication Review, 3(1), 1-19. Retrieved October, 11th, 2007 from:
http://0-web.ebscohost.com.olinkserver.franklin.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=104&sid=9a2d0c89-ca0e-408f-943a-b6e91102da60%40sessionmgr103.
Hillary Cartoon. Retrieved October 13, 2007 from:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Cartoons.aspx#cartoon276120137442615
Members of the political field are well-known for their general reputation for being dishonest and manipulative, so it is easy to understand the implications of Kopacz (2006) assertion that “nonverbal displays inconsistent with accompanying verbal messages may signal deception” (as cited by Kopacz, pg 3). If one expects an individual in politics to be dishonest, they may look for non-verbal cues as a source of revealing dishonesty. So often, through television, where most Americans derive their campaign information, (Kopacz, pg. 4) voters are inundated with political commercials, or segments from campaigns, displaying internally conflicting information coming from political candidates. It seems that the right to change one’s mind is exercised thoroughly in elections resulting in the destruction of candidate’s credibility. “It’s no surprise that so many presidential candidates choose to use a “nonverbal consultant” to prepare for their big televised debates” (personal communication, P. Hamilton, October 13th, 2007). With the prominence of television as the basis for one’s decision to cast a vote for one candidate over another, “It becomes evident that nonverbal communication should be viewed as a critical aspect of the US political process” (Kopacz, pg. 4).
There are theories and models of persuasion based on nonverbal communication that are explored by Kopacz (2006). Among these models, the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion maintains that “there are two routes of information-processing that lead to judgment and attitude formation” (Kopacz, 2006, pg. 6). These routes are as follows: the central route which entails careful analysis of communication and often occurs when one is motivated and able to process information, and the peripheral route which is a low-effort way of processing information by way of “The characteristics of the message source” (Kopacz, pg. 6). This model of persuasion is the most relevant to exploring how nonverbal communication affect voters because, in the words of Kopacz, (2006) “None of the findings obtained by nonverbal research were inconsistent with the ELM framework” (Kopecz, pg. 12). The ELM, although not proving Kopacz (2006) assertion, acts as the umbrella for the other theories explored in this article.
Four other perspectives of nonverbal behavior were reviewed by Kopacz (2006) and include the following: Chance’s ethological theory of attention structure, Masters and Sullivan focus on facial gestures, Duck’s similarity theory, and Burgoon, Birk, and Pfau’s dominance-credibility theory. (Kopacz, pp. 4-5) Each of these theories analyzed, failed to completely support the idea that candidates’ nonverbal communication directly affects electoral votes.
To explore the above four theories further, Kopacz (2006), outlined four empirical findings, as they relate to each theory and the relevance to nonverbal displays and election outcomes. These findings include the importance of the following: facial expressions, physical appearance, paralanguage, and visual focus. (Kopacz, pp. 8-10) When referring to B.B. & P.’s dominance/credibility and Duck’s similarity theory, although not proven by researchers, Kopacz (2006) states that “assessment would be relatively easy to perform by means of self-report measures” (Kopacz, page 12). In my work experience, I have accepted offers of employment in the past for companies based on the dominance and credibility, as well as the similarities in personality and character traits, displayed by my potential superiors during the interviewing process.
I had to go through a series of interviews to obtain the position I currently hold. My third and final interview was with John, the president of the company. When I walked in, he took the time to greet me openly and look me directly in the eyes, actions that made me feel comfortable and confident in his credibility as a leader. Direct eye contact is an example of the importance of “gaze”(Kopacz-, 2006 pg. 11), a subpoint of the point of “visual focus” (Kopacz, pg. 10) in nonverbal communication. In a relatively short time, John also exemplified behaviors that made me feel as though we were similar, and this greatly affected my decision to join his team. Under the assumptions of Duck’s similarity theory, “People are especially likely to identify with amicable personalities, the hedonic (affiliative) behaviors like handshakes, smiles, and open body posture, may contribute…to success” (Kopacz, pg. 5).
The same important nonverbal behaviors outlined in Kopacz (2006) would be expected of any leader of a department, a company, or a nation. Since “Nonverbal decoding requires a different type of processing and perhaps less mental effort than does verbal communication,” (Kopacz, pg. 7) it can be assumed that nonverbal communication has been used by humans before the ability to speak. “Scholars demonstrate that it takes less time and effort to comprehend audiovisual messages, than is needed to comprehend verbal messages alone” (as cited in Kopacz, 2006 pg. 7). This would imply that nonverbal communication is of utmost importance when it comes to political campaigns and any other situation in business when judgment is involved.
In the 21st century, with technology expansion and new mediums for communication, the context of messages must be clarified to heighten understanding. If an individual is saying one thing with words, yet contradicting the meaning of their verbal message with nonverbal communication, instead of the intended message being communicated, deceitfulness is conveyed. It is the responsibility of every leader, especially a potential leader of our nation, to have the integrity to do what they say, and with the help of articles such as Kopacz (2006) regarding nonverbal communication, have the sense to make sure their nonverbal and verbal communication is in alignment with their intended meaning.
References
Kopacz, M. (2006). Nonverbal communication as a persuasion tool: Current status and future directions. Rocky Mountain Communication Review, 3(1), 1-19. Retrieved October, 11th, 2007 from:
http://0-web.ebscohost.com.olinkserver.franklin.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=104&sid=9a2d0c89-ca0e-408f-943a-b6e91102da60%40sessionmgr103.
Hillary Cartoon. Retrieved October 13, 2007 from:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Cartoons.aspx#cartoon276120137442615
5 comments:
Great lead with the cartoon!!
I love this cartoon of Hilary. I had one up as well but was a parody about a baby saying closer, closer while the photo was being taken. Great writing piece!
Well done. Written like a true thinker. I expected you to bash Hilary, but then she doesn't need your help. JD
Really great post!
interesting read. I would love to follow you on twitter.
Post a Comment