DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 071 124 CS 500 099

AUTHOR O'Connor, J. RegisTITLE Kinesics, Communication and Group Interaction.PUB DATE 5 Apr 72NOTE 11p.; Paper presented at the Convention of the

Southern Speech Communication Assn. (Bowling Green,Ky., April 5, 1972)

EDRS PRICE MF-S0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS Behavioral Science Research; *Communication (Thought

Transfer); Group Dynamics; *Group Relations;Individual Power; *Interaction Process Analysis;Interpersonal Competence; Nonverbal Communication;Perception; *Verbal Communication

IDENTIFIERS *Kinesics

ABSTRACTThis paper reports on the effects of four forms of

kinesic communication and three forms of verbal communication onleadership perception in a small group setting. Forty-eight collegeage discussants were observed in groups of four during twelve30-minute sessions. Permitted only visual input, eleven previouslytrained observers recorded four areas of kinesiccommunication - -dynamism, alertness, involvement, and p:rticipation.Simultaneously, with only auditory input, ten other trained observersrated the discussants on three verbal variables- -group goalfacilitation, individual prominence, and interpersonal relations.Finally, the discussants rated each other "on the amount of influenceeach had in the group." The experimenter presents three majorconclusions: (1) of all the seven variables analyzed, participation,dynamism, and individual prominence (in that order) relate toleadership perception; (2) among the kinesic variables, participationand dynamism appear to influence leadership perception; and (3) amongthe verbal variables, individual prominence and group goalfacilitation appear to influence leadership perception. OM

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO.OUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG.MATING IT, POINTS OF VIEW OR 07INIONS STATED 00 NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EOLICATION POSITION OR POLICY.

KfNESICS, COMMUNICATION AND GROUP TNTERACTION

paper presented at the convention of t?,_p

SOUTi-FRN SF_.: CH COY:MUNTCATTON A=ISCCTATION

Ap1711 5, 1972

by

J. Resis O'Connor

Wentern Kentucky University

Tzolin Green, 1.:y.

'PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS COPY.RIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTEDBY

J. Regis O'Connor

TO ERIC AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATINGUNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE US OFFICEOF EDUCATION FURTHER REPRODUCTIONOUTSIDE HE ERIC SYSTEM REQUIRES PER.MISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER

1a

P

Kinesic Communidation and Group Interaction: Let us Begin!

Research dealing with the behavior of pedple in groups has

become increasingly prolific in the years since World War I.I.

By 1953 Cartwright and Zander were able to synthesize the already

voluminous literature in the first edition of their Group

Dynamics. Fourteen years and two editions later, they reported:

zany new problems have been investigated, new techniquesof research have been invented, and new theoretical formu-lation:: have been produced. A deeper understanding Ofthe central problems of group dynamics and a firmerempirical basi:-. for conclusions have also been achieved,I

Studies dealing with leadership have been consistently

in the forefront of this steady progress. The amount of litera-

ture dealing with this phenomenon has been so prodigious, and

so widely disseminated over the social science fields that any

attempt at synthesis should be regarded as either grandly

heroic or idealistically foolhardy.

Such is not the case, however, with leadership studies

of direct interest to the communications expert. With notable

exceptions, such as the work of :-3ales,2 Borman: in the Yinnesota

Studies,' and the recent study by Russell,4 very little ar.alysis

has been made of communication patterns in groups as thei

relate to leadership. Probably the most neglected segment

of leadership-communication has been that of kinesic, or body-

motion communication. The science of kinesics, the study of

what is communicated by bodily Movements, has been developed

over the past twenty years primarily by two men: Dr. Ray L.

Birdwhiste2,1, presently the senior research scientist at the

Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric institute in Philadelphia,

and his former associate,/ Dr. Albert Scheflen, now Director of

the ProSect on Human Communication at the Bronx State Hospital

in New York. irdwhistell ebnecially has develOped theoretical

as well as empirical approaches to the study of kinesics as

it applies to psychiatric interviewing situations.

Although the science of kinesics and the study Of leadership

have been developing together-chronolorricallv, the two have

yet to be married. In the remainder of this paper I would

like to report on n investiption that i have conducted ever

the past two years that hrinqs togeth°1, thee. 1.;f, lin,3c o4* 4nouirv.

Before doing so, however, I wish to raise a point of

justificationjustification, that is, for studying a non-

linzuistic form of communication within a discipline that has

traditionally placed its primary emphasis on communicating

through use of the language arts.

Xy justification is a very simple one: Kinesics is a

languaEre: And althouzh it does not use phonemes and morphemes

to communicate, it does communicate, willy-nilly, like it or

not. One of the most siEnificant reasons I can conceive why

we in speech need to be concerned about it, if anyone is, is

that kinetic communication must accompany the spol4en word in

3

any situatien in which the speaker is visible to the listener.

Whether this form of visible communication (which is almost

universally present) proves helpful or disruptive must surely

be the concern of people within our discipline. Birdwhistell

provides a rationale for this kind of study that could have

been (actually should have been) written by someone in the field

of speech:

Inspection of any extensive body of interactionaldate offers proof that humans vocalize but a very smallpercentaGe of their interactional time. Furthermore suchvocalizations do not characteittical)y take place in asituation . shaded to obscure Visual ex7erience orin a situation of such anesthetic force es to preventproprioceptive and automatic .eedback. it is not necessaryto debrecate the role of o- even ^-dsentences in the communicative process. However from thepoint of view of the behavioral scientist concerned withcommunication, languaxe is an infracommunicational system.I am convinced that neither lanFuaEre nor cor,r-unication canbe either studied or understood so to a: as we assume thateither subsumes the other.5

Assuming that l have justified this kind of study,

would now like to report on an investi:7atior that I conducted

which correlated If_inesic research and the study of small Froup

discussion. The main purpose of the project was to investirzate

the relationships amonG several forms of kinesic communication,

several forms of verbal co7munication, and the perception of

leadership in small Group policy discussions.

There were four areas of kinesic communication observed.

These were chosen after several pilot studies indicated that

O CD c+ .---i I-' Cl) :11 C I-1- I 1 ill P 'a-- 1-_-1 'd P d' lb t1 0. 75' P 3 ".-a. P c+ Zr 0' ).--) 0, CD P 1....i. J Cl.4., 0 ea 1.-b in 0 (1) 'd ,--1, '..1..:: 0 0 d 0 0 1-, 1-1- $1»-I., CD /--4 ::: Z ; '4 0 ;:r a), 0 1-V-4 < d!cD 0 t<CO I-' F-1 11 .-:-: p (r) 0) < CD (7) CI) C) p in C.1.. C) :IS c+ 0 'd :5 (D c), ......z,5 i---1 :::.' '.:5' c+ a 1-:- s.- :1-10 , 0 ct- 1-, CD 0 c+ II 1-, P 0, :.3 ',..r.1P 0 1-,- 0 2 . 1 t : co t;z1 I.,* l'"1 c+ 0 Cf) i:1 c - -, cl. ' ) - 0 ; . . 5 ).-1 I - l _ I 1 1 C 7 :7 . 1 1 ::- )4 0 C3' F -1 ,1 1- 4 4o 1 c r if um: :::r.e.

---.1 m In ri- ,0 (/) ct. H o ct. c: 0 :1 0 0 P 1--, :5 P :.: ;n -,...$CD ;..r Z 11' 0. 1-z. 1-311--1 1-4

}-3 1.-1. (n c+ ':-.: Z5 (I!

:-.1 ::5 r--, '',:s" :.>" in ---:: 1-- P o 'd 1) 11 :.5 0 I-) 0, P 0 0 Z ,,-;CD - I-, (-z c+ P - d --: ::5 u) C) cf-- u) C.). (e) (i) 0, 0, 0 (D (f) t-Y ;. L''. r-)- co :3 P. 1-131 CA I-1 ......:0 .4 c ti 1.-i 0 t'll 0 cn 1- (n (,1 )...4 0 1-$ Cr? P 0 ::5 0 5 1-5 m

El 0 .ci ;..I < c+ ,-3 1-, ,.) :5 1---, 1,3 (a 0 15 cn C*3 /-b ''') i 0 ::.1 0 :.3' t', 0 '0 1;'-0 0. g: (f) (1) cD i

11 as. :..*r F,I in 1, 0. c,, co , ., -: l.5. P P P -;"C...1 5:: i-b 0 U) ou) 1---1 c+ e 1-1 0, 0 11 (i) U) C) Cl- ;.1. p 1-4 0 p ,.3* g: 1-.(,c.) :

1.5 v-b 0 El )-,-rs) 1s. =.: ;5* 0 :.-5 bl i

0- 0 t.0

I--'El 0*(---4 El 1-' Cl) :5 :5 U) 1-I-

P `-41 GI 0 a) 0 t- ;:5' tc.i-i, t+ :.1; I-, :cit-IT) cn :CI' P tC,"))' 1.c-1'

P) ;.,:: ::1 L,-) 0 T -'' Ca 0 i-1.) :-.icl. r.; o cn O' I-,- 1.:.-- 0 0 co 'Y P 0 1--J to- cc- cn 0,a- I-., co CO CD -1./ ::4 ()I o ',>;. )." 0 I 0 ..., p ,t-i 0 'CS tl)

O cl- 0' 0 p 0 1-,cs Ca!-J' 0 (t) 1'1.) CI (,) '..5 0 0

P 0 H :3 0 P..,-5 ci. u)(i) :-.1 ::s ''' (0 .4(D ic_, 1,1, co.) 1,...hb C.:-;1:.(Cli, to.:::cr P (r, 0 0

:-.)- I-4 0 'd I--0 D. CD :.1 04 0 C)0 rt; :.), 0 1.4 C.) 0 I.-, 0O U St) G) ;xi .4, CD In

I-4J CD C . c+ m P 0 CI c+ 0 I -» 0 0 cf. d 0- l '-,'. SLY (/)

n) I-, ... In 04 0 c.: th c). Cl I, :i '5 C") C:i :a cm.;

0...4 4 0 :71 (I) to 0 SI) ti,Cl) CJ In 0 w n c: 0-s' Pi-.1 :.`," i 1 c+ toe CO :.1- 0 0 El :S.I Ori 'S el' Cl) I-" 0 cr) 1i :3CD 0 ...Y 0 1-, 1,J pi rn 9 ID S 1-. *,.) 1.-1Q.1 i'" In :i ;11 (Ti < ',-A. ).. :)' :5 co U) c+(n ts CD Cl) :i 0 6. P :-.. (;) Ls) C) P-1.4 0 0 tj GS - 1 : ` . c. I. 03 0 : )1 Cl) t P

U) 0 0- 0 0 z.:. '<I c+ 1.' :.; 0 0 c+' 0' .:1, 17; () 0 1-1.41-Y 1-t. 1-4., 0 Cl) CD z'r. c4 cnc+ 0 l-° 1- b I-' ;:). ;:i i lcD P N' %-5 < i 1-1 :1 0 'd cf. 0 :3 0

(-4- rsil 0, I,- 0 I-, P ::5 Cu P CD 0 c+ c + 'Y IP () Pi cs. :.--. cf-r.: F.3 El }-,- C .3 t: i-ll 0 .0 0 s) CO C. ;5' cocD P C:Ti) Cl- t'

C+ -' '-=', I-. 1) P3

1.-I C.:, 01-1 In :j CO

1-' / I. CI' :.1 P C). t--; 0 '$ :5 !Pa PD. ;,,-..... p c; c+ I-, Ib 0, 0 :-. li., cn() .,..i co 0 CY' I-, P. C)

1%) :-.. ;.) Cl) P' 0' 0 1...0 --. -

cf I-14- :4 :.3 Z 'Z.'S l'Y q in

.-. m :I-, ',..:,

0 0 S.:CA :i 0 0 i'S 'ci 1-, 0 CD SI).. :i 7,:j CD 0. cf. :,;' p E;..) C+ F.. P.:". '' 6) (.00 :3 c).

---4 0, 0 ::: + f., )-, :5- )-4;-30- e..,.. CS) 1-1.1

a) ;.)' F.'sD cr:.). cp 0. :i co 0, 11 u` 6) ccqh 4 (r) CD i

:S 1 --' 0 c: '1 CD C I.' C+ O. a) 'Y /-5 S... ''.1 C) Cl) 1-1. 0 0, 0 1" ' LI g ig, °St's °Li P :'.1 'd 1-1 c)'

0 p )---/ f.--1 c: :3" ;S' p s 0 0 0 .0 5 F '.1 0, F.1 a) 0 CD ...

: o S"' I" (n 0 0. :'.)- P. tS 1',.) cn 1-1 i-, 0' P 4.4 CD ;.). i'b t$ 0. 0 CD0. P 1--. d U) '--: 0 CD l':' P c+ '?..' P (7) Cl) cr) i, :5 ----: 0 15 Por o C)O :5 0 :-1 '11 I -, c+ C)' ',1 u) I' 11 CD (I) c+ i:1 ;5- to Cl) 0 9.) 0 ;5 a cD t ,I (D C).1--) (1., ,,,5 cc):5 ... .c.1 c: .s 1--,

O 1-, 1:1) (l) 0, V.", I ' 0 i 1 0, ! " Ii) CD .. PO i ; :1 1-.1

c)-St. i.st '',. tz.7). rt:::)' CI, (.. {:1DI lil c4 --. 0 0 pi 0. -1.) 1.0j., (12 c-'- c F) 0 0 ;1'.; ,:i t-4 0 (;) .1: 0 i...-' (D P.)GI pi cc) cD p. CD ) ti 0P ...)- 0- 11 :).;-).1.1- 0

0 i b CD 0, I-' :4 V.) to co 0. dt-P P. o '.5 :5 o' 0 0 0 0 1-4j tl .-1 El :,'.v 0 :3 (I) 's'a c--4 50 co :5 cl }1 +$ 1" 1...c+ :i u) 'a to u) :3 1--,c-:',, :-.1 .)1,0 cp

O 0 0 0 Cl) c n ,}71,(jCD I -" 0. 1.4., ? (lc,. Cul .;5'.. 0 ::... Pa sn .. 0, p. Cl- C) r''...:1 it: 0 II-)::.S ; 3" U) 0 CD '-4 0, :.S P :i O. :-.1 "3 0 p P- I-V. r.) tl LE-J "C.: .4 0 vj CD I-J

G)11 I(D-j :::.. :, 1-:1;.41): ril -((-D.I'); '04 :-'13.

cn 00 I-' 4.-1. ;.)- 11 (.I' :.3P Cl) 12 0. ,1 PG; ;01, P. IIODI C P 9S tial :IV:-.3- CD Ca :.'"i" -:: c+ 0 44 CD ...

CO t-S 1--1 V.-1 0 ID C) ;.7)"0 47: I Z,-) CD0 0 ;3' )--, ;N" (T) S-1

S.) cD< cn m 0 P < 5., p ::. c+ (1) Cn

Li P Ca ).-.2 c+ CD I-' r-,..SO CD 1-1 :n 0 :7. 1-i

O ::). 'CI t'S ,4 1,..6 CD cn (1) Vi. (;) 1,1):

;5 < :,;' N' :1 c+0. 0 CDZ CD Cl) c+ (D d 'S CD 0) ti .. cf.C+ (i) C). ( Y1 CF (f1 Cri 2-(nai

frbOHH9(1;

C) 5 1-.3 c+O P Co P"

0 'ICD

P.*c CDP frs0.O c CD

b 0 0Co 0*

CD

(CTCO

(FT 0' 0 PC 0 >4 0'

0, C) I)CI

1-1(44

I.1

O (1.) ;'5"CD (1)

H CDtiCD :3.

CD c+0. (1,%.11-

IS cn, 04 ;..r:1O 0..

I -' ;_V 0 CD

P U (NT

cD'd tsPrn

(1 0), Cl) 0(1) 0

cCl))1- ():0 CD :7; 00, 0 1-(1))-b 1-4 (D

W 11r1 C)

Ca, cn CD' c+0Vo 51) 1-1

t-'-

c+ C- D

O CD

I'0,

5

PARTICIPATION - A ,discussant. would be marked high onthe participation scale if he is observed to be talking(mouth moving) a large percenta;ze of the time.

Three verbal, or linguistic variables, were simultaneously

observed by a _separate group of listeners. These were adapted

from Carter's summary of research which isolated three linguistic

factors which were consistently observable and analyzableIt

in spite of considerable variation in_gro,-p size l'nd of task,"'i

and= leacership practice." 6 They were defined as follows:

GROUP GOAT 'FACILTTATTGN - These ere the type of commentstint show an effort to help the Froun achieve Foals.A :discussant whose comments are .often characterized byof and a desire to have the group arrive ata definite decision would be marked hic:h on the GroupGoal Facnitrition scale.If a oiscussant makes no remrrks that show he isinterested in the Froup's arriving at a definite answerto the discussion question, he would be :,narked low onthe Group Goal Facilitation scale.

INDIVIDUA7 PRCMIYHNCT, - These ane the type of commentsthat a diecussant ma::-es that show efforts to stand outfrom othe.:.s in the ,(7roup and individually achieve variouspersonal goals.A discussant who makes a larFe number of comments thatare characterized by authoritarianism, ar,lEressiveness,confidence strivinE for r::cosnition would be markedhigh on the Individua l Prominence scale.If a member seems to be promotinc: hie solution to theproblem rether than s eking a solution that all memberscan aFree or compromise on, or if he tries to tell therest of the group how to run the discussion, he wouldbe marked hir:h on the Tnc:ivid-.1a1 Prominence scale.

INTERPFRSCNAL 2:7ATTCYS - These are the type of comTentsthat show a member's e::forts to establish and maintaina friendly behavior pattern toward the other group members.

O

A discussant -..nose comments are often chE.racterizedby peniality, cordiality and agreeableness would benarked high on the Interpersonal ?.elations scale. .

If a discussant ma'zes few comments desiczned torender him accepted by the other group members, ormakes C o' Tents that alienate him from the other Groupmembers, he would be marked low on the IntertersonalRelations scale.

Forty -eight college age discussants were observed in

groups of four during twelve 30-minute sessions in which they

discussed a policy ouestion relating to the structure of

universities in the United States. In each session an average

of 11 observers rated the discussants on the amount and in-

tensity of t'neir bodily movements from behind a one-way

mirror, a position which did not allow their hearing any of the

vocal portion of the discussion. The four kinesic factor

definitions delineated above wore given the observers in a ro-

tation pattern. Their ratings were made on 7-'ooint evaluative

scales.

Simultaneously, an average of 10 observers rated the

Ciscussants on the three types of verbal comtents from a position

that allowed the observers to hear, but not see any of the

/bodily communicotion.

''then each diScussion session was concluded, the discussants

were as.:ed to rate every other discussant "on the amount of

influence each had in the rout'." The four kinesic and three

verbal variables were then compared to the dependent variable,

leadership, and to each other by stepwise multiple regression

analysis.

Results of the study appeared to warrant the following

conclusions:

I) Cf the four kinesic and three verbal variables tested,

Participation (amount of mouth movement) is related to leadership

perception.

2) Dynamism (arm and hand movements) and Individual Prominence

(comments designed to furthei. individual goals) sisnificantly

relate to leadership perception.

3) Among the four kinesic variables considered, leadership

perception appears to be a function of Participation and

Dynamism, in that order.

4_) Among the three verbal variables considered, leadership

perception appears to be a function of Individual Prominence

and Group Goal Facilitation (comments designed to further

group Foals) , in that order.

5) The perception of leadership in male discussants is more

siFnificantly related to Dynamism and Interpersonal Relations

(comments desiFned to promote n friendly attitude) than it is

in female discussants.

6) Dynamism and Interpersonal Relations operate as functions of

the topic being discussed in their relations to leadership

perception.

The results of the study indicate promise for kinesic

Communication as a meaningful predictor of leadership perception.

If further research validates this suspicion, in what ways

8

can kinesic research benefit our discipline? The most practical

apnlication of this kind of investigation is the potential

ability it provides for the traininF of small group discussion

leaders. If continued kinesic leadership research confirms

the present findings, we can confidently teach potential

leaders in education, industry, government and other areas

that if the.5 move in certain ways, and make certain types of

comments, they will be perceived in a leadership role. This,

of course, is a long way from sayinF they will to effective

leaderg. It will take an even greater effort in future studies

to satisfactorily answer all the ramifications of that complex

question.

The findings of this present study reloting to the relation-

ship between kinceic and v orbc forms also indicate several

possibilities for future research. Once the correlative nature

of the kinesic and verbal modes in normal rersons has been

well confirmed, studies comnaring normal persons with those

having various types of functicnal speech disorders could

be conducted. Stuttering is one such disorder that might

benefit from such investigations. The phenomenon of late

speech In young children is another area that might have some

light shed on it by investigation of kinesic-verbal interplay.

There are numerous other facets of small group discussion

whera kinesic research is needed: The relation of kinesic

forms of communication to consensus and group cohesiveness;

9

The effect of the kineslo mode when various kinds of group

tasks are employed; The effect of kinesio communication when

appointed, rather than emergent leaders are used. For all

practical purposes, any leadership variable that has been

studied using verbal forms of communication, needs to be

considered in light of the kinesic mode.

The present study is a start. It opens an avenue that

has heretofore not been opened. Future investirations into

the relationships between small croup communication patterns

and leadership-perception should profit by the information

pregnant in kinesic communication.

FOOTNOTES

1Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander (eds.) Grovn Dynamics:

Research and Theory (3rd ed.; New York: Harper a=! Row, 29667,p. viii.

4Cf. Robert F. Bales, Task Roles and r,ocial Role, in

Problem Solvin= Grounc:," in Ivan D. Steiner and Nr-rtin Fishbein(eds.) Current Studios In Social Ps7chole=7v (New Pork: Holt,Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 2,9675), pp. 321-33.

3cf. Ernest G. :'ormann Discussion and Groat, Methods:

Theory and Practice (New York: Harper and Row, 71-F37)', pp. 244-;5aF4 331-4.

TUFh C. Russell, "An investiz.7ation of Leadership MaintenanceBehavior" (unpublished Ph.D. dissnitation, In Uni7ersity,1970).

5 4.."

International Encvelonedia of the Soc!al Sole,..coll Vol. III, 28.

6Launor F. Carter, "Recordin and EvaluatinF the Performance

of Individuals as Members of Small Groups," Personnel PsycholoPv,VII (1954), 479.