The Effects of Vocalics and Nonverbal Sensitivity on Compliance A Replication and Extension

An interaction between receiver ability to decode vocalic cues and speaker vocalic patterns in obtaining compliance was investigated in this study. Expectancy theory was offered as an explanation for this interaction. Because changes in vocalic patterns can violate expectations, receivers make consistent interpretations of these vocalic cues, and evaluations of these interpretations may be affected by decoder predispositions toward communication that, in turn, produce differentialperceptions ofsource reward. Respondents were interviewed by trained encoders who used neutral, pleasant, and hostile vocal patterns. Compliance was assessed by asking for a donation of time to communication research. Follow-up surveys measured perceived relational messages, interviewer credibility, vocal pleasantness, and the degree to which the vocalic pattern was expected. The predicted disordinal interaction between decoding ability and voice condition was found. Decoding ability did not correlate with predispositions, nullifying source reward as afactor in the evaluation of vocalic violations. It was suggested that preferences for vocalic patterns influenced evaluations: Good decoders may have preferred ajfiliative cues and thus complied more with pleasant voices, whereas poor decoders may have preferred assertive patterns and complied more with hostile voices. recent experiment by Hall (1980) examined the impact of vocal encoding and decoding ability on persuasion. Her results are intriguing because they unexpectedly showed that only decoding ability was related to compliance. These findings suggest that a fundamental shift in research focus from source behavior to receiver cognitive processing may be needed to understand completely this function of nonverbal communication. The present study was

[1]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[2]  John O. Greene,et al.  A discrepancy‐arousal explanation of mutual influence in expressive behavior for adult and infant‐adult interaction 1 , 1982 .

[3]  R. Street.  Speech Convergence and Speech Evaluation in Fact-Finding Interviews , 1984 .

[4]  Richard L. Street,et al.  Speech rate acceptance ranges as a function of evaluative domain, listener speech rate, and communication context , 1982 .

[5]  Albert Mehrabian,et al.  A theory of affiliation , 1974 .

[6]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  The unwillingness‐to‐communicate scale: Development and validation , 1976 .

[7]  H. Giles,et al.  They are — So they spoke: Noncontent speech stereotypes , 1981 .

[8]  Jerold L. Hale,et al.  The fundamental topoi of relational communication , 1984 .

[9]  J. Burgoon.  A Communication Model of Personal Space Violations: Explication and an Initial Test. , 1978 .

[10]  Bruce L. Smith,et al.  Effects of Speech Rate on Personality Perception , 1975, Language and speech.

[11]  S. Feldstein,et al.  Rhythms of dialogue , 1970 .

[12]  D. Buller.  Distraction during persuasive communication: A meta‐analytic review , 1986 .

[13]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  THE EFFECT OF INTERACTION BEHAVIOR ON SOURCE CREDIBILITY, HOMOPHILY, AND INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION , 1974 .

[14]  D. Stacks,et al.  A communicative model of violations of distancing expectations , 1979 .

[15]  Voice Tone and Persuasion , 1980 .

[16]  D. Stang,et al.  Effect of interaction rate on ratings of leadership and liking. , 1973, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[17]  B. J. Winer.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

[18]  R. Rosenthal.  Sensitivity to Nonverbal Communication: The PONS Test , 1979 .

[19]  Michael Burgoon,et al.  An Empirical Test of a Model of Resistance to Persuasion. , 1978 .

[20]  Michael D. Miller,et al.  THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VIOLATIONS OF EXPECTATIONS AND THE INDUCTION OF RESISTANCE TO PERSUASION , 1979 .

[21]  R. Street.  Evaluation of noncontent speech accommodation , 1982 .

[22]  J. Mccroskey.  Measurement of the Credibility of Peers and Spouses. , 1973 .

[23]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[24]  R. Street,et al.  The conception and perception of noncontent speech performance: implications for speech-accommodation theory , 1984 .

[25]  D. Stacks,et al.  The role of nonverbal behaviors as distractors in resistance to persuasion in interpersonal contexts , 1981 .

[26]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Three field experiments on the effects of violations of conversational distance , 1982 .

[27]  Jerold L. Hale,et al.  Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication , 1987 .

[28]  G. Keppel,et al.  Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook , 1976 .

[29]  R. Rosenthal.  MEASURING SENSITIVITY TO NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION: THE PONS TEST* , 1979 .

[30]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Communicative effects of gaze behavior: a test of two contrasting explanations , 1986 .

[31]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  TOWARD A THEORY OF PERSONAL SPACE EXPECTATIONS AND THEIR VIOLATIONS , 1976 .