- Email: [email protected]
Extraversion and the ability to decode nonverbal communication
Person. indiuid. Di$. Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 965-972, 1988 Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
Copyright c
0191-8a69/stl $3.00 + 0.00 1988 Pergamon Press plc
EXTRAVERSION AND THE ABILITY TO DECODE NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION* ROBIN M. AKERT~ and ABIGAILT. PANTER$ Department
of Psychology, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA 02181, U.S.A.
(Received
27 July 1987; received
for publicarion
6 January
1988)
Summary-This study examined the relationship between extraversion, as measured by the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI), and skill at decoding nonverbal forms of communication. Prior research has had mixed success in establishing this relationship. Because extraverts have more experience in social settings than introverts, and because extraverts have a greater desire for sensory stimulation than introverts, it was hypothesized that extraverts would decode nonverbal cues in social interaction more accurately than introverts. The data supported this hypothesis. Extraverts were significantly moreaccurate in interpreting the meaning of nonverbal communication than introverts; in addition, extraverts were more confident that they were accurate decoders than introverts. The results are discussed in terms of cognitive processing style: the ‘extravert advantage’ in decoding nonverbal communication may be due to extraverts’ superior attentive/perceptual skills; their superior interpretive/attributional skills; or both. In addition, the results are discussed in terms of methodological issues in the nonverbal decoding literature and their impact on research on extraversion. The nonverbal decoding task used in the present study differed from that of prior research by presenting scenes of natural, spontaneous, dyadic interactions for which an objective criterion for accuracy existed.
INTRODUCTION
The personality trait that has received perhaps the most attention in the nonverbal communication literature is extraversion. Individual differences in extraversion lead to predictions about an individual’s actual behavior in social settings, about the frequency with which an individual will enter into such interactions, about the success or ease with which he or she navigates through the social arena, and finally, even about how motivated the individual is to be ‘sociable’. A personality measure that centers on one’s behavior in social interaction is a promising candidate for predicting the ability to communicate effectively-and one component of effective communication is the ability to express (encode) and interpret (decode) nonverbal information. A growing body of research offers support for the relationship between extraversion and nonverbal encoding skill (e.g. Buck, 1975; Buck, Miller and Caul, 1974; Cunningham, 1977; Friedman, Riggio and Segall, 1980; Riggio, Widaman and Friedman, 1985; Siegman and Reynolds, 1983). In these studies, the measure of extraversion has been the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1968); the Self-Monitoring Scale’s (Snyder, 1974) extraversion factor (viz. Briggs, Cheek and Buss, 1980); or sociometric, teacher, or experimenter ratings of observed sociability. The nonverbal encoding tasks were typically ‘posed’ ones, where the individual(s) attempted to enact a particular emotion. A smaller subset of these studies [those of Buck and his colleagues (Buck, 1975; Buck et al., 1974; Buck, Savin, Miller and Caul, 1972)] have elicited unposed, natural expressions of emotion as the encoding task. Across these studies, a strong and consistent positive relationship between extraversion and nonverbal expressivity, or encoding, has been found. In marked contrast to the encoding literature, the decoding literature presents a contradictory, even quixotic relationship between extraversion and nonverbal skill. In fact, relating any personality characteristics to the ‘good’ decoder has proven problematic. As Toner and Gates (1985) note: “Although some studies have shown that certain personality traits do seem to be related to
*This research was presented in part at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, New York City, 1986. tTo whom reprint requests should be sent. ICurrently a doctoral candidate at the Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY 10003, U.S.A. 965
966
ROBIN M. AKERT and ABIGAILT. PANTER
expressive, or ‘encoding skill’, . . . the evidence on personality factors relating to recognition, or ‘decoding skill’ . . . is, at present, scant” (p. 49). The empirical evidence for a relationship between extraversion and decoding ability is mixed. Some studies have reported no relationship (Cunningham, 1977; Rosenthal, Hall, DiMatteo, Rogers and Archer, 1979; Riggio and Friedman, 1982, 1983); other studies have found that extraverts are more accurate than introverts at decoding posed expressions of emotion (Funder and Harris, 1986; Mill, 1984). Why should extraversion be related to nonverbal decoding skill, and why has the quest for such a relationship proven to be such an uncertain empirical endeavor? The answer to the first question lies in Eysenck’s (1967) neurological theory of extraversion; the answer to the second lies in problems of methodology that constrain the nonverbal decoding paradigm (viz. Archer and Akert, 1984, in press). Eysenck and Eysenck (1968) -describe the typical extravert (relative to the introvert) as a communicative, sociable, outgoing, and energetic person who thrives on social contact and who does not regulate tightly his/her emotional reactions. It is reasonable to assume that people who seek out social interaction, and who are comfortable in social settings, will have ample opportunity to develop and refine their nonverbal decoding strategies. Sapir (1958) described nonverbal communication as a “secret code which is written nowhere” (p. 556); only through experience and observation can an individual become nonverbally ‘literate’. Thus, the differential social experience of extraverts and introverts suggests that extraverts will be more skilled at recognising and interpreting nonverbal cues. As Allport (1924) put it, “The self-conscious or submissive individual who avoids face-to-face contacts, especially in strenuous moods, and who is somewhat embarrassed in the presence of ‘scenes’, would naturally miss many opportunities for learning the vocabulary of facial expression” (p. 229). In addition to the ‘social practice’ account of the relationship between extraversion and nonverbal decoding ability, there is also an account based on neurological differences. Eysenck’s (1967; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1985) theory of personality posits a neurological basis for variations in extraversion/introversion. Research has found that extraverts (relative to introverts) tolerate higher levels of sensory stimulation in both visual and auditory modalities, and are more open to sensory stimuli (Eysenck, 1971; Friedman and Meares, 1979); desire and seek stronger levels of stimulation (Ludvigh and Happ, 1974; Weisen, 1965); perform less well on monotonous tasks unless background noise or social stimulation is added to the task (Wilson, 1977); and incorporate more variety into their performance on a monotonous task, apparently in an attempt to increase stimulation (Hill, 1975). Thus, research has indicated that introverts tend to shy away from stimulation, while extraverts tend to be strongly attracted to it. What does this pattern of results suggest about nonverbal decoding ability? Social interaction provides participants with a high level of sensory stimulation. Talking to another person involves interpreting the verbal channel-i.e. the other person’s words and their explicit and implicit meaning, as well as the ‘subtext’ of the conversation-the individual’s shifting tone of voice, fleeting facial expressions, changing posture and gestures, and even physical appearance. In addition, participants in social interaction must be aware of the context in which these verbal and nonverbal communications occur. A comment or tone of voice appropriate to one setting (an intimate dinner for two) may be highly inappropriate, and therefore revealing, in another setting (a job interview). Finally, the verbal and nonverbal complexity of dyadic conversation is multiplied as the number of interactants increases. Thus, the myriad verbal and nonverbal cues that define social interaction provide a rich sensory environment, one that should prove stimulating for and appealing to extraverts. In addition, extraverts’ desire to add stimulation to a ‘monotonous task’ is applicable here. One can survive fairly successfully in social interaction if one concentrates on only the verbal channel of information. We are a verbal species and our words provide a somewhat complete description of our desires, intent, and meaning. However, by choosing to focus on the co-occurring nonverbal channels of communication, an additional level of meaning is revealed (e.g. Archer and Akert, 1977). In fact, in many forms of conversation (e.g. sarcasm) the meaning is completely lost if one ignores the nonverbal channel. Thus, in any social interaction, even a ‘monotonous’ one, the extravert can satisfy his/her need for increased stimulation by monitoring both forms of communication-a complex and stimulating task indeed.
Extraversion and the ability to decode nonverbal communication
967
While the theoretical evidence suggests that extraverts will be more accurate decoders of nonverbal cues, the empirical evidence is contradictory. For example, Cunningham (1977) videotaped encoders as they acted out a positive or negative mood while reading sentences. The decoder Ss’ task was to rate the mood being expressed along a positive/negative continuum. Cunningham (1977) found that extraversion, as measured by the EPI, was unrelated to decoding ability for all three types of nonverbal tasks studied (i.e. videotaped scenes of the encoders’ faces only; videotaped scenes of their bodies only; videotaped scenes of their faces and bodies). Rosenthal et al. (1979) examined extraversion as part of their larger project on sensitivity to nonverbal communication using the PONS test. The PONS is composed of 220 auditory and visual scenes. In each of these 2-set segments, a young woman encoder is acting out a particular affective state or attitude. The scenes are presented to the subject in 11 different nonverbal channels (e.g. face only; filtered speech; etc.). The S’s task is to determine which of the two phrases (e.g. ‘criticizing someone for being late’ or ‘talking to a lost child’) best matches the scene. In three studies, Rosenthal et al. (1979) correlated extraversion, as measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers, 1962), which correlates 0.74 with the EPQ measure of extraversion (Steele and Kelly, 1976), with decoding accuracy on the various channels of the PONS. No significant correlations were found for these three samples. While the weak correlations were typically in the positive direction, occasionally they were reversed. Similarly, Riggio and Friedman (1982) found that decoding performance on the PONS was unrelated (r = 0.12) with extraversion as measured by the extraversion factor of the Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974); this factor correlates 0.51 with the extraversion factor of the EPI (Briggs et al., 1980). In summary, Rosenthal et al. (1979) stated, “A good deal more research is needed before we can say much more about the nature of the relationship between introversion and sensitivity to nonverbal cues” (p. 262). Recently, two studies have reported significant positive correlations between extraversion and decoding ability. Interestingly, one study employed the PONS; Funder and Harris (1986) found that overall accuracy on the PONS (i.e. Ss’ judgments summed across the I1 channels) correlated significantly (r = 0.33; P < 0.05) with extraversion as measured by the extraversion factor of the Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974). Mill (1984) also employed posed encoding stimuli. Her encoder was a trained actress who communicated emotions vocally while reading sentences. Ss’ accuracy at decoding these paralinguistic cues was correlated positively (r = 0.40; P < 0.05) with extraversion as measured by the extraversion factor of the Self-Monitoring Scale. Thus, to date there are two studies (Funder and Harris, 1986; Mill, 1984) which report positive results in this area. Why has the relationship between extraversion and decoding ability been so elusive? Have the nonverbal decoding tasks used by researchers resembled real-world interactions? Have these tasks constituted the type of decoding scenarios where we would expect an ‘extravert advantage’ to occur? The nonverbal decoding tasks used by prior research (Cunningham, 1977; Funder and Harris, 1986; Mill, 1984; Riggio and Friedman, 1982; Rosenthal et al., 1979) have been in the ‘decoding of emotion’ paradigm. Ss used various channels of nonverbal communication (e.g. facial expressions; tone of voice) to determine the affective state of the encoder. In addition, these nonverbal tasks were composed of posed, rather than natural-occurring behavior, and involved only one encoder at a time emoting. Finally, the criterion for ‘accuracy’, or skill at the tasks, was relatively subjective, depending on the expert opinion of the experimenter and/or encoder, and the face validity of the nonverbal behavior itself. Thus, the possible link between extraversion and decoding skill has been explored for only one specific skill-interpreting acted-out emotions; has presented decoders with a task that is less complex than interpreting natural, ongoing interaction between two or more people; and has relied upon a relatively ‘soft’ criterion for accuracy (Cook, 1971). As Cunningham (1977) noted in his research, “The present study sampled only a few of the wide variety of nonverbal communication tasks and procedures. . . . It is expected that in other nonverbal communication situations, especially those involving more demanding tasks, (certain) personalities . . . might prove most proficient” (pp. 582-583). The research findings on extraverts’ preferred levels of stimulation (cited above) suggest that a more cognitively complex nonverbal decoding task may be needed to test adequately the relative skills of extraverts and introverts. Since extraverts are more tolerant of and desirous of high levels of stimulation, a nonverbal decoding task which closely parallels natural interaction may be needed
968
ROBIN M.
AKERT and ABIGAIL
T. PANTER
to reveal the hypothesized ‘extravert advantage’. For example, a decoding task consisting of people having real conversations would mirror the kind of nonverbal decoding skills used in everyday life. As an added benefit, such a task would have a great deal of ecological validity. A useful experimental strategy for exploring this hypothesis has been discussed by Archer and Akert (1977, 1980, 1984). Based on their work with the Social Interpretations Task (SIT), Archer and Akert (1984) suggest that an optimum nonverbal decoding task includes: naturally occurring behavior, instead of posed behavior; behavioral sequences that involve communication (i.e. discussion, interaction) between people, instead of sequences involving only a single encoder; interpretative questions that ask the perceiver to make many types of social judgments, in addition to the identification of the encoder’s emotional state; and interpretative questions for which an objective, veriJiuble criterion for accuracy exists, instead of a subjective criterion. The present study has been designed to examine the hypothesis that a positive relationship exists between extraversion and the ability to decode nonverbal cues accurately. A nonverbal decoding task was designed following the objectives described above. Ss were shown videotaped scenes, without sound, of naturally occurring, unposed, and unrehearsed interactions between pairs of encoders. The Ss’ decoding task was to choose the encoders’ actual topic of conversation from several alternatives, based on the visual nonverbal behavior in the scene. Therefore, an objective, empirically verifiable criterion for accuracy for each scene was available. In addition, Ss rated how confident they were that their answers to the decoding task were correct. Prior research has compared Ss’ evaluations of their nonverbal encoding skill or decoding skill to their actual encoding ability (Friedman, Prince, Riggio and DiMatteo, 1980; Riggio et al., 1985; Zuckerman and Larrance, 1979) or decoding ability (DePaulo and Rosenthal, 1979; Zuckerman and Larrance, 1979). For example, Zuckerman and Larrance’s (1979) Perceived Decoding Ability (PDA) measure asks Ss to assess their ability to recognize and interpret nonverbal behavior in social interaction; an example of an item from the PDA is: “I can usually tell when someone is angry from his or her tone of voice”. Zuckerman and Larrance (1979) found that Ss’ beliefs about their decoding ability were basically unrelated to their actual ability to decode nonverbal cues. In the present study, it is hypothesized that the relationship between self-reported nonverbal skill and actual nonverbal skill is mediated by extraversion. Thus a significant, positive correlation is hypothesized to exist between confidence in one’s decoding judgments and extraversion. Not only will extraverts be more accurate decoders of nonverbal behavior, a by-product of their social experience will be their awareness that they are accurate decoders of nonverbal cues. METHOD Subjects
Thirty-four students, aged 17-22, participated as Ss. Thirty-two Ss were females at Wellesley College, and two were male exchange students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Nonverbal Decoding Tusk
Seven episodes from the ABC or PBS broadcasts of the ‘Dick Cavett Show’ were obtained from the show’s New York office. Dick Cavett’s guests on these shows were Yo Yo Ma, Twyla Tharp, Chevy Chase, Norman Mailer, Julia Child, Robin Williams, and Jonathan Miller. These guests were selected so as to represent a fairly diverse group of professions, as well as both genders. The experimenters chose three to four excerpts from each interview on the basis of nonverbal content. That is, the chosen excerpts contained active expressions of nonverbal behavior, such as gestures, body movement, and facial expressions *. The chosen excerpts contained camera shots showing Dick Cavett and the guest interacting, as well as closeups of Cavett, and of the guest,
*When constructing a nonverbal communication task, it is imperative that the task not be too difficult-nothing can be learned about differential decoding abilities if everyone fails to choose the correct answers. Given our desire for an objective. verifiable criterion of accuracy, and our decision to use the actual verbal transcript as this criterion, it was necessary to choose excerpts where some obvious visual nonverbal behaviors occurred. Otherwise, Ss would have very few cues available upon which to base their judgments. Note that just because some nonverbal behaviors occur in a scene (e.g. laughter; eye glances; gestures; changing facial expressions), the answer as to ‘what is happening’ is not readily apparent-a great deal of latitude exists for personal observation and attribution.
Extraversion and the ability to decode nonverbal communication
969
talking or listening. Twenty-five excerpts, each 60-90 set in length, were selected and transferred to videotape. The Ss’ decoding task was to determine the ‘topic of conversation’ for each excerpt. Because the Ss watched the videotaped scenes without sound, they could not rely upon simple audition skills to determine the correct answer. Instead, the Ss had to interpret the nonverbal behavior of Cavett and his guest in order to arrive at a judgment. Each of the 25 scenes was paired with a multiple-choice question. The answers to each question were composed of four possible conversational topics. An objective criterion for accuracy existed for each scene: the actual topic of conversation during the interview excerpt constituted the correct answer. The three incorrect choices (lures) were also topics discussed by Cavett and the given guest at other (nonpresented) points in the interview. The correct answer and the three lures were edited to be approximately equal in length and were presented in random order. Thus, the Ss were asked, ‘What are Dick Cavett and his guest discussing in this excerpt?’ An example of the four possible answers for a given scene is: (a) Yo Yo Ma is recalling a childhood experience. (b) Yo Yo Ma is talking about his favorite cello. (c) Yo Yo Ma is talking about his understanding of musical talent. (d) Yo Yo Ma is telling Cavett about how much he hates to travel. Procedure
Upon arrival, Ss were told that they would be ‘reviewing talk shows and the media’. Ss were given the nonverbal decoding task answer booklet, and oral instructions for its completion. The answer booklet contained the 25 multiple-choice questions which asked Ss to determine the topic of conversation in each videotaped scene. After choosing a response, Ss rated their degree of confidence in the accuracy of their judgment, on a 1 (‘not at all confident’k7 (‘very confident’) Likert scale. The videotaped excerpts were shown, without sound, with ample time allowed for Ss to choose their answers between segments. The videotaped portion of the study took approximately 50 min. Immediately after watching the videotape, Ss were asked to complete a personality questionnaire; the EPI (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1968) was administered. The Ss were then orally debriefed and thanked by the experimenter, who explained the true nature of the study and the hypotheses. The Ss were encouraged to discuss their answers and the nonverbal cues they had used to reach their judgments. RESULTS
AND
DISCUSSION
The Ss’ performance on the decoding task indicated that they were able to decode the meaning of the nonverbal behavior accurately. Given that there were four choices for each question, the probability of guessing the correct answer is 25% for each of the questions. The actual mean percentage correct for each question indicated that for 22 of the 25 scenes, Ss chose the correct answer at above chance level. The total decoding accuracy scores for the sample ranged from 8 to 18 out of a possible score of 25. The mean number correct was 12.35*, where a theoretical chance level of accuracy across the 25 scenes is only 8.36. Thus, the Dick Cavett Interview decoding task fulfilled its objectives: the mean score was above chance level, indicating that Ss were able to make correct attributions about the conversational topics using only the naturally occurring nonverbal behavior in the scenes, Second, and most importantly, the scores on the decoding task indicated a wide range of response-some people were more accurate decoders than others. This fact leads us to the central question of the study: were extraverts more accurate decoders of nonverbal communication than introverts? As hypothesized, a significant, positive correlation was found between extraversiont and decoding accuracy (r = 0.38; P < 0.01). The more extraverted the individual, the more accurately *The mean accuracy score of 12.35, on a 25item task, reflects a standard level of accuracy on nonverbal decoding tasks. For example, the mean accuracy score on the 20-item Social Interpretations Task (SIT; Archer and Akert, 1984) is 9.69, based on a normative sample of 1388 Ss; the chance level of accuracy on the SIT is 7.33. tScores on the EPI ranged from 7 to 20, out of a possible score of 24. The mean score of the sample was 13.74. The EPI scores of the sample approach the norm for American college students in degree of extraversion, and the range of scores indicates a diverse sample.
970
ROBIN M. AKERT and ABIGAIL T. PANTER
he or she interpreted interpersonal behavior using only nonverbal cues. Thus, the ability to decode nonverbal behavior accurately in social situations is indeed enhanced by extraverted tendencies. What accounts for this ‘extravert advantage’ in decoding nonverbal communication? The superior decoding skills of extraverts relative to introverts could be caused by differential processing at one of two cognitive stages. The first cognitive stage involves selective attention to relevant stimuli and subsequent perception of these stimuli. In interpersonal settings, the perceiver is faced with a myriad of cues, both verbal and nonverbal. In order to understand others’ messages and to respond appropriately, the perceiver must attend to another person’s words, tone of voice, facial expressions, gestures, etc. The perceiver must also pay attention to the context or situation in which the conversation is occurring. Thus, nonverbal decoding ability in real-world, interpersonal settings requires focused attention and perception. The relative decoding superiority of extraverts, therefore, may be due to their superior attentional and perceptual abilities. Extraverts may pay closer attention to the overall situation, leading them to perceive more information in the nonverbal channels of communication than introverts. As a result, extraverts may simply have more information on which to base their judgments than do introverts. Postulating differential cognitive processing at this stage corresponds directly with Eysenck’s (1967) neurological description of extraverts’ preferred levels of sensory stimulation. In addition, the neurological explanation suggests that extraverts need and seek additional stimulation in a given situation. It may be that extraverts do not merely perceive, in a passive fashion, more information than introverts. Instead, extraverts may be more motivated to seek such information actively. It seems reasonable to propose that such an active, information-gathering approach to decoding interpersonal behavior will yield more accurate interpretations of that behavior. On the other hand, the relative decoding superiority of extraverts may be due to differential processing at a later cognitive stage. That is, extraverts may simply interpret their perceptions in a more useful (i.e. accurate) fashion. Thus, extraverts may not have more information than introverts upon which to base their attributions, extraverts may simply use the existing information in a more veridical fashion. This interpretation is suggested by the behavioral or ‘social practice’. explanation of extraversion. Extraverts are more communicative, sociable, and outgoing than introverts. In addition, extraverts thrive on and seek out social interaction to a greater extent than introverts. The highly social lifestyle of extraverts translates into greater social experience; literally, more ‘miles’ have been logged in social interaction by extraverts than by introverts. Because of this experience, extraverts have had more opportunity than introverts to form social interpretations about others. Extraverts have probably also had more opportunity to learn whether these interpretations are right or wrong, and to modify their attributional strategies for use in the future. Finally. it is possible that the ‘extravert advantage’ occurs at both stages of cognitive processing. Extraverts may perceive more information in the nonverbal channels of communication and may also interpret that information in a more veridical fashion. The extravert advantage may result from greater perceptual/attentional skills and greater attributional skills. This hypothesis is compelling given that it is the combined prediction of the neurological and behavioral theories of extraversion. Further research is needed to determine what accounts for extraverts’ heightened ability to decode nonverbal cues accurately in complex social situations. In addition, the results from the present study indicate that extraverts are not only more accurate than introverts at decoding nonverbal cues, extraverts also tend to be more confident than introverts that their judgments are accurate. The correlation between extraversion and decoding confidence* indicated a strong trend toward significance (r = 0.26; P = 0.06). Conversely, the correlation between decoding confidence and decoding accuracy was not significant [r = 0.11; P = 0.26). This latter correlation indicates that Ss who were accurate decoders were no more confident that they were accurate than inaccurate Ss. Instead, the personality dimensions of extraversion mediates the effect. It is extraverts who are more accurate, and more confident of their decoding skill, as compared to introverts. Extraverts’ sense of confidence about their interpersonal attributions is probably reinforced by their experiences in their highly social lifestyle. Because they frequently place themselves in the *The Ss’ mean rating of confidence in the accuracy of their judgments ranged from 2.85 to 5.35. The mean confidence level for the sample was 4.13. on a seven-point scale where I = ‘not at all confident’ and 7 = ‘very confident’.
Extraversion
and the ability
to decode
nonverbal
communication
971
middle of social interaction, extraverts have had many opportunities to form judgments about others and to determine how accurate or ‘insightful’ their judgments are. Extraverts are most likely aware on some level of the ability to decode nonverbal behavior. This awareness, in turn, promotes their confidence in their social skill. Prior research has found very little relationship between self-professed nonverbal decoding ability and actual ability. For example, Rosenthal et al. (1979) found near zero correlations between Ss’ self-reports of decoding ability and their PONS scores across 28 studies. Similarly, DePaulo and Rosenthal (1979) found no relationship between self-rated accuracy and actual accuracy on the PONS. In their research with the Perceived Decoding Ability (PDA) test, Zuckerman and Larrance (1979) correlated PDA scores with several types of nonverbal tasks. Across 11 studies, they found only two significant correlations, the largest of which was between the PDA and the Brief Exposure version of the PONS (r = 0.28). The nonsignificant correlation found in the present study between accuracy and confidence fits into this general pattern of prior results. However, the present findings suggest that while people in general may lack insight about their actual decoding ability, extraverts have more insight than introverts. Further research is needed to examine the complex relationships betwe@ decoding accuracy on in uivo nonverbal tasks; confidence in the accuracy of one’s answers on such tasks; global self:perceptions of decoding ability; and extraversion. During the debriefing, S’s were asked to comment on the specific nonverbal behaviors which they had used to reach their judgments. The Ss’ comments indicate what has already been shown empirically: when the verbal channel is excluded, rich and informative channels of nonverbal information remain, and these nonverbal channels offer sufficient information for Ss to choose the correct answer. Examples of such comments are: ‘Dick’s brow flinched’; ‘Theatrical gestures; animated facial expression’; ‘He seemed to be relating a narrative, stressing points with hand and head motions’; ‘He had a curious look on his face’; ‘Monotonous gestures’; ‘He rolled his eyes in the back of his head’; and ‘She seemed uptight and moved in her chair like she was uncomfortable’. Ss’ comments also indicated how nonverbal cues can be misleading. For example, one question had an accuracy level only slightly above chance; in this excerpt, Yo Yo Ma speaks of his meeting with a master cellist. At one point, he clenches his fist to emphasize the inspirational experience of this meeting. The fist clenching was often interpreted by the Ss as indicating fighting, best represented by one of the lures about Yo Yo’s rebellious years at Harvard. The finding of a significant relationship between extraversion and nonverbal decoding accuracy is compelling in light of the relative lack of empirical evidence in this area. Moreover, the strong trend toward a positive relationship between extraversion and confidence in one’s decoding ability indicates a need to explore this relationship further. However, it is suggested that future research use natural, unposed, and context-bound nonverbal tasks for which accuracy can be objectively verified, since this procedure provides an effective medium for investigating the role of personality variables in the decoding of nonverbal communication. AcknoHledgemenrs-This research was supported in part by a Wellesley College Faculty Research Grant. awarded to the first author. We would like to thank Avril Thorne and Jonathan Cheek for their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts. The assistance of Regina Flanagan in data collection is also appreciated.
REFERENCES Allport F. H. (1924) Social Ps.whology. Houghton Miffln, New York. Archer D. and Akert R. M. (1977) Words and everything else: verbal and nonverbal cues in social interaction. J. Person. sot. Ps_,chol. 35, 443449. Archer D. and Akert R. M. (1980) The encoding of meaning: a test of three theories of social interaction. Soriol. Inq. SO, 393419. Archer D. and Akert R. M. (1984) Methodological issues in nonverbal communication. In Issues in Person Percep/ion (Edited by Cook M.). Methuen Press, London. Archer D. and Akert R. M. (in press) The lnrerpretarion q/Behavior: Verbal and Nonverbal Facrors in Person Perception. Cambridge University Press. Briggs S. R., Cheek J. M. and Buss A. H. (1980) An analysis of the self-monitoring scale. J. Person. sot. Psychol. 38, 679486. Buck R. (1975) Nonverbal communication of affect in children. J. Person. sot. Psycho/. 31, 644-653. Buck R. W., Savin V. J., Miller R. E. and Caul W. F. (1972) Communication of affect through facial expressions in humans. J. Person. sot. Psychol. 23, 362-371.
ROBIN
972
M. AKERTand ABIGAILT. PANTER
Buck R., Miller R. E. and Gaul W. F. (1974) Sex, personality, and physiological variables in the communication of emotion via facial expression. J. Person. sot. Psychol. 30, 587-596. Cook M. (1971) Inrerpersonai Perception. Penguin Books, Baltimore, Md. Cunningham M. R. (1977) Personality and the structure of the nonverbal communication of emotion. J. Person. 45, 564-584. DePaulo 8. M. and Rosenthal R. (1979) Ambivalence, discrepancy and deception in nonverbal communication. In Skill in Nonverbal Communication (Edited by Rosenthal R.). Gelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, Cambridge, Mass. Eysenck H. J. (1967) The Biological Basis of Personality. Thomas, Springfield, Ill. Eysenck H. J. (1971) Reading in Exiraversion-Introversion. I: Basic Processes. Staples Press, London. Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck S. B. G. (1968) Manualfor the Eysenck Personality Invemory. Educational and Industrial Testing Service, San Diego, Calif. Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck M. W. (1985) Personality and Individual Differences: A Natural Science Approach. Plenum Press, New York. Friedman J. and Meares R. (1979) Cortical evoked potentials and extraversion. Psychosom. Med. 41, 279-286. Friedman H. S., Prince L. M., Riggio R. E. and DiMatteo M. R. (1980) Understanding and assessing nonverbal expressiveness: the Affective Communication Test. J. Person. sot. Psycho/. 39, 333-351. Friedman H. S., Riggio R. E. and Segall D. 0. (1980) Personality and the enactment of emotion. J. nonverb. Behav. 5, 3548.
Funder D. C. and Harris M. J. (1986) On the several facets of personality assessment: the case of social acuity. J. Person. 54, 528-550.
Hill A. B. (1975) Extraversion and variety seeking in a monotonous task. Br. J. Psycho/. 66, 9-13. Ludvigh E. J. and Happ D. (1974) Extraversion and preferred level of sensory stimulation. J. Psycho/. 65, 359-365. Mill J. (1984) High and low self-monitoring individuals: their decoding skills and empathic expression. J. Person. 52, 372-388.
Myers I. B. (1962) The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychology Press, Palo Alto, Calif. Riggio R. E. and Friedman H. S. (1982) The interrelationships of self-monitoring factors, personality traits, and nonverbal social skills. J. nonuerb. Behav. 7, 33-45. Riggio R. E. and Friedman H. S. (1983) Individual differences and cues to deception. J. Person. sot. Psychol. 45, 899-915. Riggio R. E., Widaman K. F. and Friedman H. S. (1985) Actual and perceived emotional sending and personality correlates. J. nonverb.
Behav. 9, 69-83.
Rosenthal R., Hall J. A., DiMatteo M. R., Rogers P. L. and Archer D. (1979) Sensitivity lo Nonverbal Communicarion: the PONS Test. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md. Sapir E. A. (1958) The unconscious patterning of behavior in society. In Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language. Culture and Personality (Edited by Mandelbaum D. G.). University of California Press, Berkeley, Calif. Siegman A. W. and Reynolds M. A. (1983) Self-monitoring and speech in feigned and unfeigned lying. J. Person. Sot. Psychol.
45, 13251333.
Snyder M. (1974) Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. J. Person. sot. Psychol. 30, 526-537. Steele R. S. and Kelly T. J. (1976) Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and Jungian Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Correlation of Extraversion-Introversion. J. consub. clin. Psycho/. 44, 69&691. Toner H. L. and Gates G. R. (1985) Emotional traits and recognition of facial expression of emotion. J. nonwrb. Behav. 9, 48-66.
Weisen A. (1965) Differential reinforcing effects of onset and offset of stimulation on the operant behavior of normals, neurotics. and psychopaths. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida. Wilson G. (1977) Introversion/extraversion. In Personality Variables in Social Behavior (Edited by Blass T.). Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Zuckerman M. and Larrance D. (1979) Individual differences in perceived encoding and decoding abilities. In Skill in Nonverbal Communication (Edited by Rosenthal R.). Qelgeschlager, Gunn SCHain, Cambridge, Mass.
Copyright c
0191-8a69/stl $3.00 + 0.00 1988 Pergamon Press plc
EXTRAVERSION AND THE ABILITY TO DECODE NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION* ROBIN M. AKERT~ and ABIGAILT. PANTER$ Department
of Psychology, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA 02181, U.S.A.
(Received
27 July 1987; received
for publicarion
6 January
1988)
Summary-This study examined the relationship between extraversion, as measured by the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI), and skill at decoding nonverbal forms of communication. Prior research has had mixed success in establishing this relationship. Because extraverts have more experience in social settings than introverts, and because extraverts have a greater desire for sensory stimulation than introverts, it was hypothesized that extraverts would decode nonverbal cues in social interaction more accurately than introverts. The data supported this hypothesis. Extraverts were significantly moreaccurate in interpreting the meaning of nonverbal communication than introverts; in addition, extraverts were more confident that they were accurate decoders than introverts. The results are discussed in terms of cognitive processing style: the ‘extravert advantage’ in decoding nonverbal communication may be due to extraverts’ superior attentive/perceptual skills; their superior interpretive/attributional skills; or both. In addition, the results are discussed in terms of methodological issues in the nonverbal decoding literature and their impact on research on extraversion. The nonverbal decoding task used in the present study differed from that of prior research by presenting scenes of natural, spontaneous, dyadic interactions for which an objective criterion for accuracy existed.
INTRODUCTION
The personality trait that has received perhaps the most attention in the nonverbal communication literature is extraversion. Individual differences in extraversion lead to predictions about an individual’s actual behavior in social settings, about the frequency with which an individual will enter into such interactions, about the success or ease with which he or she navigates through the social arena, and finally, even about how motivated the individual is to be ‘sociable’. A personality measure that centers on one’s behavior in social interaction is a promising candidate for predicting the ability to communicate effectively-and one component of effective communication is the ability to express (encode) and interpret (decode) nonverbal information. A growing body of research offers support for the relationship between extraversion and nonverbal encoding skill (e.g. Buck, 1975; Buck, Miller and Caul, 1974; Cunningham, 1977; Friedman, Riggio and Segall, 1980; Riggio, Widaman and Friedman, 1985; Siegman and Reynolds, 1983). In these studies, the measure of extraversion has been the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1968); the Self-Monitoring Scale’s (Snyder, 1974) extraversion factor (viz. Briggs, Cheek and Buss, 1980); or sociometric, teacher, or experimenter ratings of observed sociability. The nonverbal encoding tasks were typically ‘posed’ ones, where the individual(s) attempted to enact a particular emotion. A smaller subset of these studies [those of Buck and his colleagues (Buck, 1975; Buck et al., 1974; Buck, Savin, Miller and Caul, 1972)] have elicited unposed, natural expressions of emotion as the encoding task. Across these studies, a strong and consistent positive relationship between extraversion and nonverbal expressivity, or encoding, has been found. In marked contrast to the encoding literature, the decoding literature presents a contradictory, even quixotic relationship between extraversion and nonverbal skill. In fact, relating any personality characteristics to the ‘good’ decoder has proven problematic. As Toner and Gates (1985) note: “Although some studies have shown that certain personality traits do seem to be related to
*This research was presented in part at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, New York City, 1986. tTo whom reprint requests should be sent. ICurrently a doctoral candidate at the Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY 10003, U.S.A. 965
966
ROBIN M. AKERT and ABIGAILT. PANTER
expressive, or ‘encoding skill’, . . . the evidence on personality factors relating to recognition, or ‘decoding skill’ . . . is, at present, scant” (p. 49). The empirical evidence for a relationship between extraversion and decoding ability is mixed. Some studies have reported no relationship (Cunningham, 1977; Rosenthal, Hall, DiMatteo, Rogers and Archer, 1979; Riggio and Friedman, 1982, 1983); other studies have found that extraverts are more accurate than introverts at decoding posed expressions of emotion (Funder and Harris, 1986; Mill, 1984). Why should extraversion be related to nonverbal decoding skill, and why has the quest for such a relationship proven to be such an uncertain empirical endeavor? The answer to the first question lies in Eysenck’s (1967) neurological theory of extraversion; the answer to the second lies in problems of methodology that constrain the nonverbal decoding paradigm (viz. Archer and Akert, 1984, in press). Eysenck and Eysenck (1968) -describe the typical extravert (relative to the introvert) as a communicative, sociable, outgoing, and energetic person who thrives on social contact and who does not regulate tightly his/her emotional reactions. It is reasonable to assume that people who seek out social interaction, and who are comfortable in social settings, will have ample opportunity to develop and refine their nonverbal decoding strategies. Sapir (1958) described nonverbal communication as a “secret code which is written nowhere” (p. 556); only through experience and observation can an individual become nonverbally ‘literate’. Thus, the differential social experience of extraverts and introverts suggests that extraverts will be more skilled at recognising and interpreting nonverbal cues. As Allport (1924) put it, “The self-conscious or submissive individual who avoids face-to-face contacts, especially in strenuous moods, and who is somewhat embarrassed in the presence of ‘scenes’, would naturally miss many opportunities for learning the vocabulary of facial expression” (p. 229). In addition to the ‘social practice’ account of the relationship between extraversion and nonverbal decoding ability, there is also an account based on neurological differences. Eysenck’s (1967; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1985) theory of personality posits a neurological basis for variations in extraversion/introversion. Research has found that extraverts (relative to introverts) tolerate higher levels of sensory stimulation in both visual and auditory modalities, and are more open to sensory stimuli (Eysenck, 1971; Friedman and Meares, 1979); desire and seek stronger levels of stimulation (Ludvigh and Happ, 1974; Weisen, 1965); perform less well on monotonous tasks unless background noise or social stimulation is added to the task (Wilson, 1977); and incorporate more variety into their performance on a monotonous task, apparently in an attempt to increase stimulation (Hill, 1975). Thus, research has indicated that introverts tend to shy away from stimulation, while extraverts tend to be strongly attracted to it. What does this pattern of results suggest about nonverbal decoding ability? Social interaction provides participants with a high level of sensory stimulation. Talking to another person involves interpreting the verbal channel-i.e. the other person’s words and their explicit and implicit meaning, as well as the ‘subtext’ of the conversation-the individual’s shifting tone of voice, fleeting facial expressions, changing posture and gestures, and even physical appearance. In addition, participants in social interaction must be aware of the context in which these verbal and nonverbal communications occur. A comment or tone of voice appropriate to one setting (an intimate dinner for two) may be highly inappropriate, and therefore revealing, in another setting (a job interview). Finally, the verbal and nonverbal complexity of dyadic conversation is multiplied as the number of interactants increases. Thus, the myriad verbal and nonverbal cues that define social interaction provide a rich sensory environment, one that should prove stimulating for and appealing to extraverts. In addition, extraverts’ desire to add stimulation to a ‘monotonous task’ is applicable here. One can survive fairly successfully in social interaction if one concentrates on only the verbal channel of information. We are a verbal species and our words provide a somewhat complete description of our desires, intent, and meaning. However, by choosing to focus on the co-occurring nonverbal channels of communication, an additional level of meaning is revealed (e.g. Archer and Akert, 1977). In fact, in many forms of conversation (e.g. sarcasm) the meaning is completely lost if one ignores the nonverbal channel. Thus, in any social interaction, even a ‘monotonous’ one, the extravert can satisfy his/her need for increased stimulation by monitoring both forms of communication-a complex and stimulating task indeed.
Extraversion and the ability to decode nonverbal communication
967
While the theoretical evidence suggests that extraverts will be more accurate decoders of nonverbal cues, the empirical evidence is contradictory. For example, Cunningham (1977) videotaped encoders as they acted out a positive or negative mood while reading sentences. The decoder Ss’ task was to rate the mood being expressed along a positive/negative continuum. Cunningham (1977) found that extraversion, as measured by the EPI, was unrelated to decoding ability for all three types of nonverbal tasks studied (i.e. videotaped scenes of the encoders’ faces only; videotaped scenes of their bodies only; videotaped scenes of their faces and bodies). Rosenthal et al. (1979) examined extraversion as part of their larger project on sensitivity to nonverbal communication using the PONS test. The PONS is composed of 220 auditory and visual scenes. In each of these 2-set segments, a young woman encoder is acting out a particular affective state or attitude. The scenes are presented to the subject in 11 different nonverbal channels (e.g. face only; filtered speech; etc.). The S’s task is to determine which of the two phrases (e.g. ‘criticizing someone for being late’ or ‘talking to a lost child’) best matches the scene. In three studies, Rosenthal et al. (1979) correlated extraversion, as measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers, 1962), which correlates 0.74 with the EPQ measure of extraversion (Steele and Kelly, 1976), with decoding accuracy on the various channels of the PONS. No significant correlations were found for these three samples. While the weak correlations were typically in the positive direction, occasionally they were reversed. Similarly, Riggio and Friedman (1982) found that decoding performance on the PONS was unrelated (r = 0.12) with extraversion as measured by the extraversion factor of the Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974); this factor correlates 0.51 with the extraversion factor of the EPI (Briggs et al., 1980). In summary, Rosenthal et al. (1979) stated, “A good deal more research is needed before we can say much more about the nature of the relationship between introversion and sensitivity to nonverbal cues” (p. 262). Recently, two studies have reported significant positive correlations between extraversion and decoding ability. Interestingly, one study employed the PONS; Funder and Harris (1986) found that overall accuracy on the PONS (i.e. Ss’ judgments summed across the I1 channels) correlated significantly (r = 0.33; P < 0.05) with extraversion as measured by the extraversion factor of the Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974). Mill (1984) also employed posed encoding stimuli. Her encoder was a trained actress who communicated emotions vocally while reading sentences. Ss’ accuracy at decoding these paralinguistic cues was correlated positively (r = 0.40; P < 0.05) with extraversion as measured by the extraversion factor of the Self-Monitoring Scale. Thus, to date there are two studies (Funder and Harris, 1986; Mill, 1984) which report positive results in this area. Why has the relationship between extraversion and decoding ability been so elusive? Have the nonverbal decoding tasks used by researchers resembled real-world interactions? Have these tasks constituted the type of decoding scenarios where we would expect an ‘extravert advantage’ to occur? The nonverbal decoding tasks used by prior research (Cunningham, 1977; Funder and Harris, 1986; Mill, 1984; Riggio and Friedman, 1982; Rosenthal et al., 1979) have been in the ‘decoding of emotion’ paradigm. Ss used various channels of nonverbal communication (e.g. facial expressions; tone of voice) to determine the affective state of the encoder. In addition, these nonverbal tasks were composed of posed, rather than natural-occurring behavior, and involved only one encoder at a time emoting. Finally, the criterion for ‘accuracy’, or skill at the tasks, was relatively subjective, depending on the expert opinion of the experimenter and/or encoder, and the face validity of the nonverbal behavior itself. Thus, the possible link between extraversion and decoding skill has been explored for only one specific skill-interpreting acted-out emotions; has presented decoders with a task that is less complex than interpreting natural, ongoing interaction between two or more people; and has relied upon a relatively ‘soft’ criterion for accuracy (Cook, 1971). As Cunningham (1977) noted in his research, “The present study sampled only a few of the wide variety of nonverbal communication tasks and procedures. . . . It is expected that in other nonverbal communication situations, especially those involving more demanding tasks, (certain) personalities . . . might prove most proficient” (pp. 582-583). The research findings on extraverts’ preferred levels of stimulation (cited above) suggest that a more cognitively complex nonverbal decoding task may be needed to test adequately the relative skills of extraverts and introverts. Since extraverts are more tolerant of and desirous of high levels of stimulation, a nonverbal decoding task which closely parallels natural interaction may be needed
968
ROBIN M.
AKERT and ABIGAIL
T. PANTER
to reveal the hypothesized ‘extravert advantage’. For example, a decoding task consisting of people having real conversations would mirror the kind of nonverbal decoding skills used in everyday life. As an added benefit, such a task would have a great deal of ecological validity. A useful experimental strategy for exploring this hypothesis has been discussed by Archer and Akert (1977, 1980, 1984). Based on their work with the Social Interpretations Task (SIT), Archer and Akert (1984) suggest that an optimum nonverbal decoding task includes: naturally occurring behavior, instead of posed behavior; behavioral sequences that involve communication (i.e. discussion, interaction) between people, instead of sequences involving only a single encoder; interpretative questions that ask the perceiver to make many types of social judgments, in addition to the identification of the encoder’s emotional state; and interpretative questions for which an objective, veriJiuble criterion for accuracy exists, instead of a subjective criterion. The present study has been designed to examine the hypothesis that a positive relationship exists between extraversion and the ability to decode nonverbal cues accurately. A nonverbal decoding task was designed following the objectives described above. Ss were shown videotaped scenes, without sound, of naturally occurring, unposed, and unrehearsed interactions between pairs of encoders. The Ss’ decoding task was to choose the encoders’ actual topic of conversation from several alternatives, based on the visual nonverbal behavior in the scene. Therefore, an objective, empirically verifiable criterion for accuracy for each scene was available. In addition, Ss rated how confident they were that their answers to the decoding task were correct. Prior research has compared Ss’ evaluations of their nonverbal encoding skill or decoding skill to their actual encoding ability (Friedman, Prince, Riggio and DiMatteo, 1980; Riggio et al., 1985; Zuckerman and Larrance, 1979) or decoding ability (DePaulo and Rosenthal, 1979; Zuckerman and Larrance, 1979). For example, Zuckerman and Larrance’s (1979) Perceived Decoding Ability (PDA) measure asks Ss to assess their ability to recognize and interpret nonverbal behavior in social interaction; an example of an item from the PDA is: “I can usually tell when someone is angry from his or her tone of voice”. Zuckerman and Larrance (1979) found that Ss’ beliefs about their decoding ability were basically unrelated to their actual ability to decode nonverbal cues. In the present study, it is hypothesized that the relationship between self-reported nonverbal skill and actual nonverbal skill is mediated by extraversion. Thus a significant, positive correlation is hypothesized to exist between confidence in one’s decoding judgments and extraversion. Not only will extraverts be more accurate decoders of nonverbal behavior, a by-product of their social experience will be their awareness that they are accurate decoders of nonverbal cues. METHOD Subjects
Thirty-four students, aged 17-22, participated as Ss. Thirty-two Ss were females at Wellesley College, and two were male exchange students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Nonverbal Decoding Tusk
Seven episodes from the ABC or PBS broadcasts of the ‘Dick Cavett Show’ were obtained from the show’s New York office. Dick Cavett’s guests on these shows were Yo Yo Ma, Twyla Tharp, Chevy Chase, Norman Mailer, Julia Child, Robin Williams, and Jonathan Miller. These guests were selected so as to represent a fairly diverse group of professions, as well as both genders. The experimenters chose three to four excerpts from each interview on the basis of nonverbal content. That is, the chosen excerpts contained active expressions of nonverbal behavior, such as gestures, body movement, and facial expressions *. The chosen excerpts contained camera shots showing Dick Cavett and the guest interacting, as well as closeups of Cavett, and of the guest,
*When constructing a nonverbal communication task, it is imperative that the task not be too difficult-nothing can be learned about differential decoding abilities if everyone fails to choose the correct answers. Given our desire for an objective. verifiable criterion of accuracy, and our decision to use the actual verbal transcript as this criterion, it was necessary to choose excerpts where some obvious visual nonverbal behaviors occurred. Otherwise, Ss would have very few cues available upon which to base their judgments. Note that just because some nonverbal behaviors occur in a scene (e.g. laughter; eye glances; gestures; changing facial expressions), the answer as to ‘what is happening’ is not readily apparent-a great deal of latitude exists for personal observation and attribution.
Extraversion and the ability to decode nonverbal communication
969
talking or listening. Twenty-five excerpts, each 60-90 set in length, were selected and transferred to videotape. The Ss’ decoding task was to determine the ‘topic of conversation’ for each excerpt. Because the Ss watched the videotaped scenes without sound, they could not rely upon simple audition skills to determine the correct answer. Instead, the Ss had to interpret the nonverbal behavior of Cavett and his guest in order to arrive at a judgment. Each of the 25 scenes was paired with a multiple-choice question. The answers to each question were composed of four possible conversational topics. An objective criterion for accuracy existed for each scene: the actual topic of conversation during the interview excerpt constituted the correct answer. The three incorrect choices (lures) were also topics discussed by Cavett and the given guest at other (nonpresented) points in the interview. The correct answer and the three lures were edited to be approximately equal in length and were presented in random order. Thus, the Ss were asked, ‘What are Dick Cavett and his guest discussing in this excerpt?’ An example of the four possible answers for a given scene is: (a) Yo Yo Ma is recalling a childhood experience. (b) Yo Yo Ma is talking about his favorite cello. (c) Yo Yo Ma is talking about his understanding of musical talent. (d) Yo Yo Ma is telling Cavett about how much he hates to travel. Procedure
Upon arrival, Ss were told that they would be ‘reviewing talk shows and the media’. Ss were given the nonverbal decoding task answer booklet, and oral instructions for its completion. The answer booklet contained the 25 multiple-choice questions which asked Ss to determine the topic of conversation in each videotaped scene. After choosing a response, Ss rated their degree of confidence in the accuracy of their judgment, on a 1 (‘not at all confident’k7 (‘very confident’) Likert scale. The videotaped excerpts were shown, without sound, with ample time allowed for Ss to choose their answers between segments. The videotaped portion of the study took approximately 50 min. Immediately after watching the videotape, Ss were asked to complete a personality questionnaire; the EPI (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1968) was administered. The Ss were then orally debriefed and thanked by the experimenter, who explained the true nature of the study and the hypotheses. The Ss were encouraged to discuss their answers and the nonverbal cues they had used to reach their judgments. RESULTS
AND
DISCUSSION
The Ss’ performance on the decoding task indicated that they were able to decode the meaning of the nonverbal behavior accurately. Given that there were four choices for each question, the probability of guessing the correct answer is 25% for each of the questions. The actual mean percentage correct for each question indicated that for 22 of the 25 scenes, Ss chose the correct answer at above chance level. The total decoding accuracy scores for the sample ranged from 8 to 18 out of a possible score of 25. The mean number correct was 12.35*, where a theoretical chance level of accuracy across the 25 scenes is only 8.36. Thus, the Dick Cavett Interview decoding task fulfilled its objectives: the mean score was above chance level, indicating that Ss were able to make correct attributions about the conversational topics using only the naturally occurring nonverbal behavior in the scenes, Second, and most importantly, the scores on the decoding task indicated a wide range of response-some people were more accurate decoders than others. This fact leads us to the central question of the study: were extraverts more accurate decoders of nonverbal communication than introverts? As hypothesized, a significant, positive correlation was found between extraversiont and decoding accuracy (r = 0.38; P < 0.01). The more extraverted the individual, the more accurately *The mean accuracy score of 12.35, on a 25item task, reflects a standard level of accuracy on nonverbal decoding tasks. For example, the mean accuracy score on the 20-item Social Interpretations Task (SIT; Archer and Akert, 1984) is 9.69, based on a normative sample of 1388 Ss; the chance level of accuracy on the SIT is 7.33. tScores on the EPI ranged from 7 to 20, out of a possible score of 24. The mean score of the sample was 13.74. The EPI scores of the sample approach the norm for American college students in degree of extraversion, and the range of scores indicates a diverse sample.
970
ROBIN M. AKERT and ABIGAIL T. PANTER
he or she interpreted interpersonal behavior using only nonverbal cues. Thus, the ability to decode nonverbal behavior accurately in social situations is indeed enhanced by extraverted tendencies. What accounts for this ‘extravert advantage’ in decoding nonverbal communication? The superior decoding skills of extraverts relative to introverts could be caused by differential processing at one of two cognitive stages. The first cognitive stage involves selective attention to relevant stimuli and subsequent perception of these stimuli. In interpersonal settings, the perceiver is faced with a myriad of cues, both verbal and nonverbal. In order to understand others’ messages and to respond appropriately, the perceiver must attend to another person’s words, tone of voice, facial expressions, gestures, etc. The perceiver must also pay attention to the context or situation in which the conversation is occurring. Thus, nonverbal decoding ability in real-world, interpersonal settings requires focused attention and perception. The relative decoding superiority of extraverts, therefore, may be due to their superior attentional and perceptual abilities. Extraverts may pay closer attention to the overall situation, leading them to perceive more information in the nonverbal channels of communication than introverts. As a result, extraverts may simply have more information on which to base their judgments than do introverts. Postulating differential cognitive processing at this stage corresponds directly with Eysenck’s (1967) neurological description of extraverts’ preferred levels of sensory stimulation. In addition, the neurological explanation suggests that extraverts need and seek additional stimulation in a given situation. It may be that extraverts do not merely perceive, in a passive fashion, more information than introverts. Instead, extraverts may be more motivated to seek such information actively. It seems reasonable to propose that such an active, information-gathering approach to decoding interpersonal behavior will yield more accurate interpretations of that behavior. On the other hand, the relative decoding superiority of extraverts may be due to differential processing at a later cognitive stage. That is, extraverts may simply interpret their perceptions in a more useful (i.e. accurate) fashion. Thus, extraverts may not have more information than introverts upon which to base their attributions, extraverts may simply use the existing information in a more veridical fashion. This interpretation is suggested by the behavioral or ‘social practice’. explanation of extraversion. Extraverts are more communicative, sociable, and outgoing than introverts. In addition, extraverts thrive on and seek out social interaction to a greater extent than introverts. The highly social lifestyle of extraverts translates into greater social experience; literally, more ‘miles’ have been logged in social interaction by extraverts than by introverts. Because of this experience, extraverts have had more opportunity than introverts to form social interpretations about others. Extraverts have probably also had more opportunity to learn whether these interpretations are right or wrong, and to modify their attributional strategies for use in the future. Finally. it is possible that the ‘extravert advantage’ occurs at both stages of cognitive processing. Extraverts may perceive more information in the nonverbal channels of communication and may also interpret that information in a more veridical fashion. The extravert advantage may result from greater perceptual/attentional skills and greater attributional skills. This hypothesis is compelling given that it is the combined prediction of the neurological and behavioral theories of extraversion. Further research is needed to determine what accounts for extraverts’ heightened ability to decode nonverbal cues accurately in complex social situations. In addition, the results from the present study indicate that extraverts are not only more accurate than introverts at decoding nonverbal cues, extraverts also tend to be more confident than introverts that their judgments are accurate. The correlation between extraversion and decoding confidence* indicated a strong trend toward significance (r = 0.26; P = 0.06). Conversely, the correlation between decoding confidence and decoding accuracy was not significant [r = 0.11; P = 0.26). This latter correlation indicates that Ss who were accurate decoders were no more confident that they were accurate than inaccurate Ss. Instead, the personality dimensions of extraversion mediates the effect. It is extraverts who are more accurate, and more confident of their decoding skill, as compared to introverts. Extraverts’ sense of confidence about their interpersonal attributions is probably reinforced by their experiences in their highly social lifestyle. Because they frequently place themselves in the *The Ss’ mean rating of confidence in the accuracy of their judgments ranged from 2.85 to 5.35. The mean confidence level for the sample was 4.13. on a seven-point scale where I = ‘not at all confident’ and 7 = ‘very confident’.
Extraversion
and the ability
to decode
nonverbal
communication
971
middle of social interaction, extraverts have had many opportunities to form judgments about others and to determine how accurate or ‘insightful’ their judgments are. Extraverts are most likely aware on some level of the ability to decode nonverbal behavior. This awareness, in turn, promotes their confidence in their social skill. Prior research has found very little relationship between self-professed nonverbal decoding ability and actual ability. For example, Rosenthal et al. (1979) found near zero correlations between Ss’ self-reports of decoding ability and their PONS scores across 28 studies. Similarly, DePaulo and Rosenthal (1979) found no relationship between self-rated accuracy and actual accuracy on the PONS. In their research with the Perceived Decoding Ability (PDA) test, Zuckerman and Larrance (1979) correlated PDA scores with several types of nonverbal tasks. Across 11 studies, they found only two significant correlations, the largest of which was between the PDA and the Brief Exposure version of the PONS (r = 0.28). The nonsignificant correlation found in the present study between accuracy and confidence fits into this general pattern of prior results. However, the present findings suggest that while people in general may lack insight about their actual decoding ability, extraverts have more insight than introverts. Further research is needed to examine the complex relationships betwe@ decoding accuracy on in uivo nonverbal tasks; confidence in the accuracy of one’s answers on such tasks; global self:perceptions of decoding ability; and extraversion. During the debriefing, S’s were asked to comment on the specific nonverbal behaviors which they had used to reach their judgments. The Ss’ comments indicate what has already been shown empirically: when the verbal channel is excluded, rich and informative channels of nonverbal information remain, and these nonverbal channels offer sufficient information for Ss to choose the correct answer. Examples of such comments are: ‘Dick’s brow flinched’; ‘Theatrical gestures; animated facial expression’; ‘He seemed to be relating a narrative, stressing points with hand and head motions’; ‘He had a curious look on his face’; ‘Monotonous gestures’; ‘He rolled his eyes in the back of his head’; and ‘She seemed uptight and moved in her chair like she was uncomfortable’. Ss’ comments also indicated how nonverbal cues can be misleading. For example, one question had an accuracy level only slightly above chance; in this excerpt, Yo Yo Ma speaks of his meeting with a master cellist. At one point, he clenches his fist to emphasize the inspirational experience of this meeting. The fist clenching was often interpreted by the Ss as indicating fighting, best represented by one of the lures about Yo Yo’s rebellious years at Harvard. The finding of a significant relationship between extraversion and nonverbal decoding accuracy is compelling in light of the relative lack of empirical evidence in this area. Moreover, the strong trend toward a positive relationship between extraversion and confidence in one’s decoding ability indicates a need to explore this relationship further. However, it is suggested that future research use natural, unposed, and context-bound nonverbal tasks for which accuracy can be objectively verified, since this procedure provides an effective medium for investigating the role of personality variables in the decoding of nonverbal communication. AcknoHledgemenrs-This research was supported in part by a Wellesley College Faculty Research Grant. awarded to the first author. We would like to thank Avril Thorne and Jonathan Cheek for their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts. The assistance of Regina Flanagan in data collection is also appreciated.
REFERENCES Allport F. H. (1924) Social Ps.whology. Houghton Miffln, New York. Archer D. and Akert R. M. (1977) Words and everything else: verbal and nonverbal cues in social interaction. J. Person. sot. Ps_,chol. 35, 443449. Archer D. and Akert R. M. (1980) The encoding of meaning: a test of three theories of social interaction. Soriol. Inq. SO, 393419. Archer D. and Akert R. M. (1984) Methodological issues in nonverbal communication. In Issues in Person Percep/ion (Edited by Cook M.). Methuen Press, London. Archer D. and Akert R. M. (in press) The lnrerpretarion q/Behavior: Verbal and Nonverbal Facrors in Person Perception. Cambridge University Press. Briggs S. R., Cheek J. M. and Buss A. H. (1980) An analysis of the self-monitoring scale. J. Person. sot. Psychol. 38, 679486. Buck R. (1975) Nonverbal communication of affect in children. J. Person. sot. Psycho/. 31, 644-653. Buck R. W., Savin V. J., Miller R. E. and Caul W. F. (1972) Communication of affect through facial expressions in humans. J. Person. sot. Psychol. 23, 362-371.
ROBIN
972
M. AKERTand ABIGAILT. PANTER
Buck R., Miller R. E. and Gaul W. F. (1974) Sex, personality, and physiological variables in the communication of emotion via facial expression. J. Person. sot. Psychol. 30, 587-596. Cook M. (1971) Inrerpersonai Perception. Penguin Books, Baltimore, Md. Cunningham M. R. (1977) Personality and the structure of the nonverbal communication of emotion. J. Person. 45, 564-584. DePaulo 8. M. and Rosenthal R. (1979) Ambivalence, discrepancy and deception in nonverbal communication. In Skill in Nonverbal Communication (Edited by Rosenthal R.). Gelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, Cambridge, Mass. Eysenck H. J. (1967) The Biological Basis of Personality. Thomas, Springfield, Ill. Eysenck H. J. (1971) Reading in Exiraversion-Introversion. I: Basic Processes. Staples Press, London. Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck S. B. G. (1968) Manualfor the Eysenck Personality Invemory. Educational and Industrial Testing Service, San Diego, Calif. Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck M. W. (1985) Personality and Individual Differences: A Natural Science Approach. Plenum Press, New York. Friedman J. and Meares R. (1979) Cortical evoked potentials and extraversion. Psychosom. Med. 41, 279-286. Friedman H. S., Prince L. M., Riggio R. E. and DiMatteo M. R. (1980) Understanding and assessing nonverbal expressiveness: the Affective Communication Test. J. Person. sot. Psycho/. 39, 333-351. Friedman H. S., Riggio R. E. and Segall D. 0. (1980) Personality and the enactment of emotion. J. nonverb. Behav. 5, 3548.
Funder D. C. and Harris M. J. (1986) On the several facets of personality assessment: the case of social acuity. J. Person. 54, 528-550.
Hill A. B. (1975) Extraversion and variety seeking in a monotonous task. Br. J. Psycho/. 66, 9-13. Ludvigh E. J. and Happ D. (1974) Extraversion and preferred level of sensory stimulation. J. Psycho/. 65, 359-365. Mill J. (1984) High and low self-monitoring individuals: their decoding skills and empathic expression. J. Person. 52, 372-388.
Myers I. B. (1962) The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychology Press, Palo Alto, Calif. Riggio R. E. and Friedman H. S. (1982) The interrelationships of self-monitoring factors, personality traits, and nonverbal social skills. J. nonuerb. Behav. 7, 33-45. Riggio R. E. and Friedman H. S. (1983) Individual differences and cues to deception. J. Person. sot. Psychol. 45, 899-915. Riggio R. E., Widaman K. F. and Friedman H. S. (1985) Actual and perceived emotional sending and personality correlates. J. nonverb.
Behav. 9, 69-83.
Rosenthal R., Hall J. A., DiMatteo M. R., Rogers P. L. and Archer D. (1979) Sensitivity lo Nonverbal Communicarion: the PONS Test. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md. Sapir E. A. (1958) The unconscious patterning of behavior in society. In Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language. Culture and Personality (Edited by Mandelbaum D. G.). University of California Press, Berkeley, Calif. Siegman A. W. and Reynolds M. A. (1983) Self-monitoring and speech in feigned and unfeigned lying. J. Person. Sot. Psychol.
45, 13251333.
Snyder M. (1974) Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. J. Person. sot. Psychol. 30, 526-537. Steele R. S. and Kelly T. J. (1976) Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and Jungian Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Correlation of Extraversion-Introversion. J. consub. clin. Psycho/. 44, 69&691. Toner H. L. and Gates G. R. (1985) Emotional traits and recognition of facial expression of emotion. J. nonwrb. Behav. 9, 48-66.
Weisen A. (1965) Differential reinforcing effects of onset and offset of stimulation on the operant behavior of normals, neurotics. and psychopaths. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida. Wilson G. (1977) Introversion/extraversion. In Personality Variables in Social Behavior (Edited by Blass T.). Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Zuckerman M. and Larrance D. (1979) Individual differences in perceived encoding and decoding abilities. In Skill in Nonverbal Communication (Edited by Rosenthal R.). Qelgeschlager, Gunn SCHain, Cambridge, Mass.