The Effects of Nonverbal Immediacy and Verbal Person Centeredness in the Emotional Support Process

Jones, Guerrero / EFFECTS OF NONVERBAL IMMEDIACY 567

The Effects of Nonverbal Immediacyand Verbal Person Centerednessin the Emotional Support Process

SUSANNE M. JONESUniversity of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeLAURA K. GUERREROArizona State University

This study explores the combined influence of nonverbal immediacy and verbal personcenteredness in the emotional support process. Three complementary models were tested inan experiment with 216 participants who disclosed an emotionally upsetting event to a con-federate trained to display different levels of nonverbal immediacy and person centeredness.Participants subsequently completed a set of instruments measuring the perceived comfort-ing quality of the confederate. Results suggested that nonverbal immediacy and personcenteredness influence perceptions of what makes for good comforting. The data supported 2of the advanced models but failed to provide support for a nonverbal primacy effect on per-ceived comforting quality.

Receiving high quality emotional support contributes to people’smental and physical well-being and increases feelings of intimacy(Albrecht, Burleson, & Sarason, 1992; Cohen & Syme, 1985). Given

its important role in people’s lives, it is not surprising that researchershave sought to determine specific behaviors that constitute high qualityemotional support. Two types of comforting behavior in particular seemhighly relevant in the provision of emotional support. The first of these,verbal person centeredness (VPC), captures the degree to which a sup-port giver verbally expresses empathy and validates the distressed

Susanne M. Jones (Ph.D., Arizona State University, 2000) is an assistant professor in the De-partment of Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and Laura K. Guerrero(Ph.D., University of Arizona, 1994) is an associate professor in the Hugh Downs School ofHuman Communication at Arizona State University, Tempe. The study is based on the firstauthor’s dissertation, which was conducted under the direction of the second author. Theauthors would like to thank the dissertation committee members, Sandra Petronio, MelanieTrost, and Steve Neuberg, the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments, aswell as Jessica Immel, Erin Kavaney, Brendan MacFarlan, Casey Moran, Kristina Olson,LeeAnn Price, and Ely Sluder for their assistance. A version of this manuscript was pre-sented at the 2001 International Communication Association conference, Washington, DC.Please direct all correspondence to Susanne Jones, Department of Communication, Univer-sity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2512 E. Hartford Ave., Merrill Hall 146, P.O. Box 413, Milwau-kee, WI 53201; [email protected].

Human Communication Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, October 2001 567–596© 2001 International Communication Association

568 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / October 2001

person’s feelings (Burleson, 1994a). The second type of behavior, nonver-bal immediacy (NVI), encompasses behaviors such as smiling, eye gaze,and direct body orientation, which reflect empathy, interpersonal warmth,and psychological closeness (Andersen, 1999). When support providersuse VPC and NVI, they show that they are listening to the distressed per-son and are taking her or his concerns seriously. Indeed, both VPC andNVI communicate warmth, care, and concern, and thus may help allevi-ate the distressed person’s negative emotional state. This study investi-gates the combined effect of these two constructs on perceived comfort-ing quality.

The study is guided by three important goals. First, because this studyis the first to use an experimental design manipulating and examiningthe responses to VPC in “real” emotionally distressing situations, it ex-tends previous programmatic research concerning the strategic role ofVPC in the comforting process. Second, although nonverbal behaviorssuch as touch and eye gaze have been investigated in relation to comfort-ing, the specific construct of NVI has not been studied in the context ofemotional support. This is surprising given that the properties underly-ing NVI, such as interpersonal warmth, increased arousal, and psycho-logical closeness, suggest that it could be a critical factor in determiningwhether emotional support is perceived positively.

The third and perhaps most important contribution of this project ad-dresses the combined influence of NVI and VPC. Preliminary work byWoods (1996, 1998) showed that VPC and NVI are conceptually compat-ible and associate positively with partner perceptions of communicationcompetence. Yet, to our knowledge, no studies have examined both VPCand NVI in relation to comforting quality. Although research on VPC hasuncovered important strategic and functional properties of useful com-forting messages, such a focus has ignored important emotional dynam-ics that are predominantly expressed through nonverbal cues, particu-larly those conveying NVI (Andersen, 1985, 1999; Andersen & Guerrero,1998). Indeed, Burleson and Goldsmith (1998) claimed that verbal as wellas nonverbal expressions of affection, care, and concern constitute a sup-portive and caring climate within which the emotionally distressed per-son can feel safe to disclose difficult emotions. Thus, we suggest that VPCand NVI work together to shape perceived comforting quality.

In addition to testing the main effects of VPC and NVI on comfortingquality, the current study tests three complementary models, namely theadditive effects model, the expectancy threshold model, and the nonver-bal primacy model. Each of these models makes unique predictions aboutthe combined influence of NVI and VPC on judgments of comfortingmessages. Before discussing the specific predictions associated with eachof these models, we turn to a discussion of verbal and nonverbal messagebehaviors in the comforting process.


VERBAL PERSON CENTEREDNESSIN THE COMFORTING PROCESS

Researchers have suggested that comforting messages can be evalu-ated based on their level of person centeredness (Applegate, 1980;Burleson, 1982). Messages that are highly person centered elaborate, ac-knowledge, and legitimize the feelings of the emotionally distressed per-son. People holding highly person-centered perspectives view others aspsychological entities possessing unique intentions, feelings, and perspec-tives that are extensively elaborated in talk. By contrast, people holdinglow person-centered perspectives view and explicitly express the socialidentities of others in terms of relatively concrete characteristics, such asphysical qualities, demographic categories, and especially socially definedroles (Applegate, 1980; Bernstein, 1974).

Applegate (1980), as well as Burleson (1982), developed a hierarchicalcoding scheme that assesses person-centered qualities of comforting mes-sages at three major levels.1 Low person-centered messages are regulative innature by implicitly or explicitly denying the feelings of the upset person(e.g., “It’s not the end of the world that you did not get the scholarship.It’s not like you had to get it in order to stay in school. So, don’t makesuch a big thing out of it.”). Moderately person-centered comforting mes-sages implicitly recognize the distressed person’s feelings, yet do not elabo-rate or contextualize them extensively (e.g., “Well, you’ve still got a 3.3GPA and that’s pretty impressive. I’ll tell you what—let’s go to Harry’sand have a few drinks. Things ought to be pretty lively there today.”).Highly person-centered comforting messages explicitly acknowledge,contextualize, and elaborate the feelings of the distressed person (e.g., “Iknow you’re pretty down about the scholarship. It’s really hard to acceptsomething like this when you’ve been looking forward to getting it forsuch a long time. Remember though, you were one of the finalists andthat’s a big accomplishment.”).2

The quality of comforting messages has typically been assessed usingmessage attributes such as appropriateness, effectiveness, sensitivity, andhelpfulness (Burleson & Samter, 1985a, 1985b; Goldsmith & MacGeorge,2000; Jones & Burleson, 1997). Although these four attributes address dif-ferent aspects of comforting behavior, they are usually moderately corre-lated with one another (Jones & Burleson, 1997). Of course, not all com-forting messages are perceived positively. In fact, some support provid-ers have trouble producing high quality comforting messages and caneven make the distressed person feel worse (Jones & Burleson, 1997).

Many studies show that people perceive highly person-centered com-forting messages as qualitatively better than low person-centered com-forting messages (for reviews see Burleson, 1994a, 1994b). Specifically,person-centered messages lead to positive outcomes associated with im-


mediate instrumental effects (e.g., increased perceived communicationcompetence), (b) long-term instrumental effects (e.g., improved copingskills), (c) immediate relational effects (e.g., increased liking), and (d) long-term relational effects (e.g., increased relational satisfaction). Our firsthypothesis not only seeks to replicate the finding that high VPC providesbetter support, but also to extend research on VPC in an important meth-odological way. Whereas past studies have typically tested the effects ofVPC using hypothetical scenarios, this study explores person centerednessin actual face-to-face interactions and in response to real-life distressingevents. Such a methodological extension is important because it furthercontributes to the ecological validity of VPC. Thus, we hypothesize that

H1: Highly person-centered messages will be perceived as qualitatively best,followed by moderately person-centered messages, whereas low person-centered messages will be perceived as least comforting.

NONVERBAL IMMEDIACY IN THE COMFORTING PROCESS

Although Burleson and his colleagues have focused exclusively on in-vestigating verbal comforting messages, evidence suggests that nonver-bal cues play an important role in the comforting process (Dolin & Booth-Butterfield, 1993; Lewis, Derlega, Shankar, Cochard, & Finkel, 1997;Winstead, Derlega, Lewis, Sanchez-Hucles, & Clarke, 1992; Yankeelov,Barbee, Cunningham, & Druen, 1995). For example, in an experimentalstudy, Winstead and her colleagues (1992) regressed perceived social sup-port on various nonverbal behaviors and found positive contributionsfor eye contact and smiling, two important NVI cues.

NVI cues are typically encoded and decoded as a set of interrelatedbehaviors that work together to increase physical and psychological close-ness during an interaction (Andersen, 1999; Planalp, DeFransisco, & Ru-therford, 1996). Close proxemic distancing, forward lean, eye contact, di-rect body orientation, smiling, touch, vocal expressiveness, and head nodsare among the most commonly cited NVI cues (Andersen, 1985; Coker &Burgoon, 1987; Patterson, 1983, 1995). These nonverbal behaviors usuallysignal social readiness and availability for communication (Andersen,1999; Patterson, 1995), convey positive affect and liking (Wiener &Mehrabian, 1968), stimulate physiological arousal and emotional changes(Andersen, Guerrero, Buller, & Jorgensen, 1998; Burgoon & Aho, 1982;Cappella & Greene, 1982), and communicate interpersonal warmth andcloseness by creating a sense of psychological connection and relationalintimacy (Andersen, 1989; Mehrabian, 1971). Nonimmediacy cues, bycontrast, convey negative affect, dislike, avoidance, and inaccessibility.


NVI behavior should play a crucial role in the comforting process forat least three reasons. First, comforting behaviors consist of many emo-tion cues, such as smiling and crying, that are communicated primarilythrough nonverbal channels (Andersen & Guerrero, 1998; Noller, 1984).Second, because NVI cues increase both physical and psychological close-ness, these cues might help a distressed person feel connected to anotherperson. People often report that the general presence and care of the sup-port giver is much more helpful than specific advice or verbal expres-sions of concern (Dakof & Taylor, 1992; Gottlieb, 1994; Rogers, 1995). Third,NVI shares several characteristics with VPC. Both VPC and NVI reflectempathy and active involvement in the conversation, which are impor-tant components of communication competence and high quality com-forting (Woods, 1996).

In sum, NVI cues are particularly relevant in the comforting processbecause they indicate that the listener is attentive, cares about the emo-tionally distressed person, and is willing to offer support. It is likely thatpeople who use high levels of NVI are perceived as providing qualita-tively better support than those who use low levels of NVI. Based onthese assumptions the following hypothesis is advanced:

H2: High nonverbal immediacy behaviors will be perceived as qualitativelybest, followed by moderate nonverbal immediacy behaviors, whereas lownonverbal immediacy behaviors will be perceived as least comforting.

THE INTERACTION OF VPC AND NVIIN THE COMFORTING PROCESS

It seems reasonable to assume that NVI and VPC act interdependentlyto affect perceptions of comforting quality. For instance, stating how muchone cares while leaning back and avoiding eye contact is likely perceivedas hurtful rather than helpful. We propose three models that specify thenature of the interaction effect between VPC and NVI on perceived com-forting quality, namely the additive effects model, the expectancy thresh-old model, and the nonverbal primacy model. Although the models drawon different theoretical frameworks and make somewhat different pre-dictions, they are largely compatible with one another.

The Additive Effects Model

The additive effects model, which could also be called the “more isbetter” model, logically follows from the assumptions leading us to pre-dict main effects for VPC and NVI. Figure 1 illustrates the specific condi-tions that will be compared under the additive effects model. Under the


additive effects model, high levels of NVI and VPC should be perceivedas providing the best form of comforting, whereas low levels of NVI andVPC ought to be perceived as least appropriate, effective, sensitive, andhelpful. The additive effects model also suggests that the high conditionswill be perceived as qualitatively better than the moderate conditions,which will be perceived as qualitatively better than the low conditions.The third hypothesis reflects these assumptions:

H3: The combination of high nonverbal immediacy and high personcenteredness will be perceived as qualitatively best, followed by highand moderate combinations. The combination of low nonverbal imme-diacy and low person centeredness will be perceived as qualitativelyworst, followed by low and moderate combinations.

The Expectancy Threshold Model

In situations where they have little or no information about each other,people tend to rely on normative behavioral scripts reflecting polite be-havior (Brown & Levinson, 1978; Burgoon, Walther, & Baesler, 1992). Thebehavioral scripts that shape such normative interactions typically reflectmoderate levels of NVI and VPC, such as listening, occasional smiles orhead nods, and expressions of interest or condolence (e.g., “I am so sorrythat you’ve had such a rough day.”).

Expressing at least moderate levels of NVI and VPC can also be viewedas reflecting interpersonally competent (i.e., appropriate and effective)

Nonverbal ImmediacyP

erso

n C

ente

redn

ess

Low Moderate High

Low

Moderate

High

-- - 0

- 0 +

0 + ++

Figure 1. The Additive Effects Model


communicative behavior (Spitzberg & Cupach 1984). Wiemann (1977), aswell as Spitzberg and Hecht (1984), found that expressions of empathy,which often involve verbal immediacy and active listening, are impor-tant indicators of communication competence, as are behaviors related toaffiliation and support, such as gaze, head nods, and smiling. Researchon communication competence seems to support the assumption thatmoderate to high levels of NVI and VPC will be perceived as qualita-tively better than low levels of NVI and VPC; moderately immediate andperson-centered behaviors meet the standards of socially appropriate andnormative behavior, whereas nonimmediate, low person-centered behav-iors do not.

Additional support for the expectancy threshold model comes fromtwo nonverbal theories of NVI, namely expectancy violation theory(Burgoon, 1978) and discrepancy arousal theory (Cappella & Greene, 1982).Although these theories advance contrasting predictions about behav-ioral responses to changes in NVI behavior, both theories suggest thatmoderate NVI behaviors often result in positive affect, positive evalua-tions, and positive behavioral responses, in part because they fulfill ex-pectations (Andersen et al., 1998; Burgoon, Stern, & Dillman, 1995;Guerrero, Jones, & Burgoon, 2000). According to expectancy violationstheory, positive outcomes are most likely when expectancies are met orexceeded (Burgoon et al., 1995). According to discrepancy arousal theory,moderately arousing behavior that falls within an “acceptance” or “ex-pected” region generally leads to positive affect. Thus, when applied tothe context of comforting, it seems reasonable to assume that people ex-pect messages that are at least moderately high in terms of NVI and VPC.Messages that fall below this standard will be perceived as inappropri-ate, ineffective, insensitive, and unhelpful (see Figure 2). The fourth hy-pothesis reflects these assumptions:

H4: Conditions that do not contain a low level of either nonverbal immediacyor person centeredness are perceived as qualitatively better than conditionsthat contain at least one low level of either nonverbal immediacy or personcenteredness.

The critical assumption underlying the expectancy threshold model isthat low levels of PCV or NVI will be perceived as violating norms ofsocial appropriateness and politeness, thus leading to negative evalua-tions. Based on this reasoning, expectancies about comforting (relevantto the context) should be related to people’s evaluations of social sup-port, such that the expectedness of behavior associates positively withperceptions of comforting quality. As stated earlier and in line with ex-pectancy violation theory and discrepancy arousal theory, behavior is


likely to be evaluated positively when expectations are met, especially ininteractions between strangers. This reasoning leads to another hypothesis:

H5: Expected comforting behavior and perceived comforting quality are posi-tively correlated with one another.

The Nonverbal Primacy Model

The nonverbal primacy model proposes that people rely predominantlyon NVI when interpreting the quality of received comforting behavior.Early evidence for the primacy of nonverbal cues comes from Watzlawick,Beavin, and Jackson (1967), who suggested that “there exists a vast areawhere we rely almost exclusively on analogic [or nonverbal] communi-cation. This is the area of relationships” (p. 63). Moreover, nearly twothirds of meaning is typically derived from nonverbal cues, a proportionthat increases even more when people are interpreting emotional mes-sages (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1996). People rely heavily on nonver-bal messages for at least three reasons. First, people generally view non-verbal communication as more spontaneous and trustworthy than verbalcommunication (Burgoon et al., 1996; Wiener & Mehrabian, 1968). Sec-ond, nonverbal communication has phylogenetic and ontogenetic primacy(Burgoon et al., 1996; Dew & Jensen, 1977). This is important becauseduring helping situations people tend to revert to phylogenetically olderresponse patterns to cope for the cognitive load induced by the distress-ing situation (Burgoon et al., 1996).


erso

n C

ente

redn

ess

Low Moderate High

Low

Moderate

High

- - -

- + +

- + +

Figure 2. The Expectancy Threshold Model


Third and most important, nonverbal cues are particularly crucial wheninterpreting emotional displays. In fact, the claim that nonverbal behav-ior is the primary vehicle for expressing emotion can be considered axi-omatic (Andersen & Guerrero, 1998; Burgoon et al., 1996). People mightrely heavily on nonverbal cues to interpret the emotional dispositions oftheir conversational partner in helping instances (Barbee, Rowatt, &Cunningham, 1998). For instance, support activation behaviors might in-clude sighing or fidgeting, sad facial expressions, or crying, whereas thecomforter might respond with NVI cues indicating availability, openness,and empathy (Barbee et al., 1998). As illustrated in Figure 3, if NVI behav-iors are the primary vehicle through which people communicate emo-tional support, then NVI cues should exhibit a primary effect over per-son-centered messages to influence perceived comforting quality. Thefollowing hypotheses reflect these predictions:

H6a: Perceived comforting quality will be higher in high nonverbal imme-diacy and moderate person-centeredness conditions than in moderate non-verbal immediacy and high person-centeredness conditions.

H6b: Perceived comforting quality will be higher in moderate nonverbal im-mediacy and low person-centeredness conditions than low nonverbal im-mediacy and moderate person-centeredness conditions.

H6c: Perceived comforting quality will be higher in high nonverbal imme-diacy and low person-centeredness conditions than in low nonverbal im-mediacy and high person-centeredness conditions.


erso

n C

ente

redn

ess

Low Moderate High

Low

Moderate

High

+ +

- +

- -

Figure 3. The Nonverbal Primacy Model


METHOD

Research Design

This experiment utilized a 3 (NVI: high, moderate, low) x 3 (VPC: high,moderate, low) sex-balanced factorial design, with participants nestedwithin NVI and VPC conditions.3 The experiment required two femaleand two male confederates. Using two confederates of each sex and bal-ancing them across cells was important so that results were not specific toone particular confederate. Within each of the nine cells, each of the fourconfederates was paired with three female participants and three maleparticipants, resulting in 24 dyads per cell. At p = .05 (two-tailed), ap-proximately 24 dyads per cell were needed to achieve a desired power of.80 to detect moderate effect sizes ranging from 25% to 36% of accountedvariance (Cohen & Cohen, 1983; Keppel, 1991).

Confederates and Confederate Training

Each confederate completed 54 interactions (female n = 27, male n =27) in three weekly 3- to 4-hour shifts over the course of 14 weeks. Theconfederates completed this work as part of a research internship class.Prior to data collection and over the course of 3 weeks, each confederatereceived 25 hours of intensive training in displaying NVI and VPC, aswell as the various combinations of NVI and VPC. A portion of the train-ing was also spent guiding confederates through the session proceduresand addressing ethical concerns about interacting with participants whodisclosed an emotionally distressful event. Data collection began onceconfederates felt mentally and behaviorally prepared to interact withparticipants. Confederates were kept blind to the study’s hypotheses.

Participants

A total of 267 students from introductory and upper division commu-nication classes at a large university in the Southwestern United Statesparticipated in this study for extra credit or research experience points.Of those, 216 dyads were used in the analysis.4 The average age of theparticipants was 21.8 years (range = 18 to 49 years). The majority of thesample consisted of White/European Americans (n = 178), Mexican-Americans, Latinos/as, or Hispanics (n = 14), and Asian or Asian Ameri-cans, (n = 11), while less than 5% of the sample belonged to other ethnicgroups.


Procedures

Setting up the experiment. Before the experiment, confederates drew aslip from an envelope to determine what condition they would be enact-ing.5 Confederates then waited outside the research laboratory as if theywere students waiting to participate in the study. Confederates displayedtheir randomly assigned behaviors as soon as the participant arrived atthe test site. Both students were escorted into the research laboratory, acomfortable apartment-like setting, and were informed that they wereabout to participate in a study examining how people talk about personalevents. To create an adequate cover for the confederates, both studentswere asked to sign up for extra credit or research experience points intheir respective classes. Confederates were specifically told to sign up fora class different from that of the participant, unless both students attendedthe same class. Participants were dismissed from the study if they indi-cated that they attended the same class and had previously talked morethan twice with the confederate. The experimenter welcomed students tothe study, summarized the procedures, and asked students to introducethemselves and to sign informed consent forms.

In order to seemingly randomly assign participants the role of the dis-closer, either the participant or the confederate was asked to pull one slipfrom a container with either two green slips bearing the word “listener”or two pink slips bearing the word “talker.” These slips were rigged sothat the confederate was always assigned the role of the listener and theparticipant was always assigned to role of the talker. Once assigned, par-ticipants and confederates were given their prospective questionnairesand were asked to complete the first section of the questionnaire packet.

Selecting the emotionally distressing event. After completing the first sec-tion of the questionnaire packet, participants were instructed to jot downand subsequently evaluate three emotionally upsetting and distressfulevents. A single-item 7-point Likert-type measure was used to identifythe strength of the emotional distress for each event on a scale from 1(very emotionally distressing) to 7 (not at all emotionally distressing). Oncecompleted, the experimenter selected the event that was evaluated as mostemotionally distressing by the participant. The mean emotional distressrating for the events that were selected for the conversation was 2.00 (SD= .96). Table 1 summarizes the emotionally distressful events participantstalked about during the conversation with the confederate.


After completing the questionnaires, students were prompted to be-gin the conversation as soon as the experimenter left the room.6 Each con-versation was videotaped and lasted exactly 5 minutes. After the conver-sation, students were told that they would be separated so they couldcomplete a final set of questionnaires in private. At this point, the confed-erates were escorted out of the lab, while the participants were promptedto complete the measures in the last section of the questionnaire packet.Once completed, participants were thoroughly debriefed, thanked for theirparticipation, and asked not to share information about the experimentwith other potential participants.

Manipulations of Nonverbal Immediacy Behaviors

Confederates were trained to feign moderate, high, or low levels ofNVI. In the moderate immediacy condition confederates were initially toldto act as they would in a typical interaction with a stranger. Past researchhas shown that most people are moderately immediate in their everydayinteractions with others (Burgoon et al., 1995). However, people do differin their everyday displays of NVI with strangers. Therefore, minor ad-justments were made so that all four confederates exhibited similar levels

TABLE 1Summary of Emotionally Distressful Events

Topic n %

Problems in romantic relationship 53 24.5(e. g., break-up, divorce, long distance problems, conflicts)

College performance 40 18.5(e.g., bad grade on test, conflict with professor)

Friend/roommate problems 29 13.4(e.g., disagreement with roommate/friend, illness of friend)

Family problems 21 9.7(e.g., parent job loss, conflict with parents)

Work-related stress 17 7.8(e.g., stress with supervisor or coworker)

Family illness 14 6.5(e.g., cancer of parent or close relative)

Death 10 4.6(e.g., death of step-dad, nephew, or grandparent)

Personal illness/injury 9 4.1(e.g., injury leading to partial quadriplegia,diabetes diagnosis, accident)

Other 23 10.6(e.g., losing items, hassles with banks and other institutions)

NOTE: N = 216.


of moderate NVI. The moderate condition was then used as a baselinecomparison point for the other two NVI conditions.

In the high nonverbal immediacy condition confederates were told to dra-matically increase their NVI from what they would do in a typical inter-action. They were particularly instructed to lean forward, to move closerto the participant (but to avoid touch), to orient their body position com-pletely toward the participant, to increase eye contact to approximately80% to 90% of the time, to smile a lot when appropriate, to nonverballyexpress emotions when appropriate, to frequently nod their heads, to bevery attentive, and to put “lots of warmth” in their voices. Overall, con-federates were told to act extremely friendly and concerned during theirinteractions with participants. To assure that confederates’ high levels ofNVI would be interpreted as positive (i.e., expressing warmth, liking, andcare), confederates were trained particularly to display high levels of posi-tive affect (i.e., smiling when appropriate), facial animation, and vocalwarmth.

In the low nonverbal immediacy condition confederates were instructedto markedly decrease their NVI behaviors from what they would typi-cally do in interactions with strangers. They were told to reduce eye con-tact to approximately 20% to 30% of the time, to avoid smiling, and tolook around the room. They were also told to lean back and away fromthe participant while markedly increasing their distance from the part-ner. Confederates were also trained to express disinterest or boredom,and overall to appear unconcerned, distracted, or tired during the con-versation. To justify such behavior, confederates were told that peoplesometimes convey low NVI unintentionally and certainly mean no harmbecause they do not know what to say and often feel overwhelmed whenfriends disclose difficult experiences.

Manipulations of Verbal Person Centeredness

Each confederate was trained to enact low, moderate, and high per-son-centered messages. Confederates were first trained to display com-forting messages high in person centeredness by focusing their verbal atten-tion on the emotions expressed by the participants. Confederates weretrained to use comforting statements that explicitly encouraged the par-ticipants to reflect on experienced emotions. For example, confederateswere trained to use comforting statements that express empathy (e.g., “Itotally understand. I feel so bad for you.”), that encourage participants totalk about their feelings (e.g., “Man, how are you feeling right now?”), orthat express acceptance of these feelings (e.g., “I don’t blame you for feel-ing that way.”). Comforting statements that offer face support throughexplicit assertions that the participant is a good person were also used


(e.g., “You’re a smart person and I’m sure you’ll do fine.”). Finally, con-federates were encouraged to offer an alternative interpretation of theemotional distress (e.g., “Maybe something good will come of this situa-tion in the long run.”).

Moderately person-centered messages legitimize the feelings of the dis-tressed participants but do not provide an opportunity for the distressedperson to resolve or improve the distressing situation. Moderately per-son-centered messages are most frequently used when comforting othersand come in the form of expressions of condolence (e.g., “I’m sorry tohear that.”) or questions to clarify the details surrounding the distressingevent (e.g., “How well did you know her before that happened?”). Inaddition to using such statements, confederates were further instructedto use statements that express mild interest and concern for the distresseddiscloser (e.g., “Geez, that sounds pretty bad.”). Confederates were alsotrained to use content-oriented questions and responses that encouragedthe participants to disclose additional details of the conversations (e.g.,“What happened then?”). Lastly, confederates were encouraged to ac-knowledge the situation of the distressed person with make content-ori-ented remarks (e.g., “It’s too bad you broke up after being together forsuch a long time.”).

Finally, for the low person-centered condition confederates were instructedto provide support that minimized and invalidated participants’ feelingsand to focus the conversation on personal problems. Verbal comfortingin this condition occurred in the form of messages that aimed at encour-aging the emotionally distressed person to forget about her or his feel-ings. (e.g., “I think you oughta get over it.”). Confederates were also in-structed to use comforting messages that ignored and minimized the feel-ings of the participants (e.g., “Oh, come on, it’s not the end of the world.It can’t really be that bad. You’ll get over it.”), that explicitly blame theparticipants for feeling miserable (e.g., “Well, you could have studiedharder.”), or that indicate that the problematic situation was meant tohappen and that the participants should move on with their lives (e.g.,“Sometimes things happen and there’s nothing we can do about it. Justforget about it.”). Lastly, confederates were encouraged to switch the con-versation to an unrelated topic or to begin talking about personal con-cerns (e.g., “Guess what happened to me?”).

Coding Procedures for Manipulation Checks

A total of three coders were used to code NVI and VPC. NVI was mea-sured using a modified version of Andersen, Andersen, and Jensen’s (1979)nonverbal immediacy instrument. This modified scale consisted of eleven7-point Likert-type scales (e.g., To what extent did Person A “sit close to


person B,” “orient body toward Person B,” “smile when appropriate?”),with items ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). When training thecoders, the end points of the scales were conceptualized so that they wouldcorrespond with the experimental context. For example, a high level ofeye contact (i.e., a “7” on the scale) was conceptualized as exhibiting eyecontact 80% or more of the time, whereas a low level of eye contact wasconceptualized as exhibiting eye contact only 20% of the time or less.Interitem reliability was .91 based on Cronbach’s alpha.

Because this study is the first to manipulate VPC during face-to-faceinteraction, the manipulation check instrument for VPC had to be devel-oped for this particular study. This scale consisted of five 7-point seman-tic differential scales identifying fundamental features of person-centeredness (i.e., self-centered vs. other-centered, invalidates vs. validates,judges vs. empathizes, disregards vs. acknowledges, and unconcernedvs. concerned). Interitem reliability was .98 using Cronbach’s alpha.

Each of the three coders was trained for approximately 5 hours to as-sess NVI and VPC behaviors from the videotaped conversations. Coderswere kept blind to the conditions they were coding. Two primary codersrated all verbal messages and nonverbal cues, respectively, whereas thesecondary coder coded 98 of the tapes for NVI (dyad n = 98) behaviorsand 118 of the tapes for VPC (dyad n = 118). The primary coder ratingswere used as the manipulation checks for later analyses. The secondarycoder ratings were used as a reliability check but were not used in thedata analyses. Interrater reliabilities (based on Ebel’s intraclass r) were.98 for the NVI measure and .95 for the VPC measure.

Participant Ratings

Immediately following the conversation, participants rated theconfederate’s behavior in terms of expectedness, appropriateness, effec-tiveness, sensitivity, and helpfulness. The expectedness measure wasadapted from a scale used by Burgoon et al. (1992) and consisted of fouritems (e.g., “My conversational partner’s behavior was how I would ex-pect most people to behave in this situation.”). Each of the items wasmeasured with 7-point Likert-type scales, ranging from 1 (very stronglydisagree) to 7 (very strongly agree). Interitem reliability for this scale was .85.

Participants also rated their partner’s behavior using fourteen 7-pointsemantic differential scales that measured the extent to which theconfederate’s behavior was perceived as appropriate-inappropriate, suit-able-unsuitable, adequate-inadequate, effective-ineffective, competence-incompetent, capable-incapable, sensitive-insensitive, perceptive-not per-ceptive, understanding-not understanding, helpful-unhelpful, beneficial-not beneficial, caring-uncaring, warm-cold, and supportive-unsupportive.7


These items were subjected to a principal axis analysis using OBLIMINrotation. In line with Goldsmith and MacGeorge’s (2000) argument thatappropriateness, effectiveness, sensitivity, and helpfulness are all part ofthe larger construct of comforting quality, the analysis produced only onefactor, which accounted for 57.8% of the total variance. Because the 14message attributes were highly correlated and formed one unidimensionalfactor, the items were combined to form one single scale to measure com-forting quality.

RESULTS

Manipulation Checks

Nonverbal immediacy. The NVI manipulation was analyzed with a 3 (NVI:high, moderate, low) x 3 (VPC: high, moderate, low) analysis of variance,with coder ratings of NVI as the dependent measure. The ANOVA showeda significant effect for nonverbal immediacy F(2, 207) = 1906.03, p < .001,η2 = .94. However, the ANOVA also indicated a significant effect for per-son centeredness, F(2, 207) = 2.51, p < .001, η2 = .03, and for the personcenteredness x immediacy interaction, F(4, 207) = 2.89, p < .05, η2 = .02.The predicted linear effect for NVI was further explored with a linearcontrast. Contrast coefficients were set at 1 for high NVI, 0 for moderateNVI, and -1 for low NVI. The coder ratings of NVI were again used as thedependent measure. The contrast revealed a significant linear effect fornonverbal immediacy, F(1, 213) = 3548.75, p < .001, η2 = .94. Means andstandard deviations for the manipulation check associated with NVI aredisplayed in Tables 2 and 3.

TABLE 2Cell Means and Standard Deviations Associated

With the Nonverbal Immediacy Manipulation Check

Nonverbal immediacy

Low Moderate High

Person centeredness M SD M SD M SD

Low 1.42 .23 3.63 .78 6.62 .26Moderate 1.49 .26 4.26 .83 6.61 .27High 1.58 .43 4.04 .67 6.71 .17

NOTE: All scales for nonverbal immediacy range from 1 to 7, with 1 representing lowerlevels of nonverbal immediacy. n = 24. N = 216.


Results indicated that whereas the NVI manipulation was highly suc-cessful, there was a small spill over effect of VPC on NVI. As suggestedby the marginal means in Table 3, the moderate and high VPC conditionswere rated as more nonverbally immediate than the low VPC condition.Nevertheless, the powerful effect size for the main manipulation effectoutweighs the effect sizes for the VPC main effect and the NVI x VPCinteraction effect. It is also noteworthy that mean ratings for the high,moderate, and low NVI conditions occupied the high, middle, and lowends of the seven-point scale.

Verbal person centeredness. The VPC manipulation was analyzed with a3 (NVI: high, moderate, low) x 3 (VPC: high, moderate, low) ANOVAwith coder ratings of VPC as the dependent measure. The ANOVA indi-cated a significant main effect for person centeredness, F(2, 207) = 696.04,p < .001, η2 = .87. The main effect for NVI and the VPC x NVI interactionwere nonsignificant. A linear contrast confirmed that the VPC manipula-tion was successful, F(1, 213) = 1416.41, p < .001, η2 = .87. Means and stan-dard deviations for the manipulation check associated with VPC are dis-played in Tables 4 and 5. As for NVI, the mean ratings on VPC occupiedthe high, middle, and low points of the scale.

Analysis Plan for Hypothesis Tests

The hypotheses were examined in the following order and with thefollowing procedures. First, a 3 (NVI: high, moderate, low) x 3 (VPC: high,moderate, low) ANOVA was used to test the main effects predicted in H1and H2. Significant main effects were followed up by linear contrasts.Second, a series of contrasts were conducted to test the hypotheses asso-ciated with the additive effects model, the expectancy threshold model,

TABLE 3Marginal Means and Standard Deviations AssociatedWith the Nonverbal Immediacy Manipulation Check

Person centeredness Nonverbal immediacy

Level M SD M SD

Low 3.89 2.20 1.50 .32Moderate 4.13 2.17 3.98 .80High 4.11 2.16 6.65 .23

NOTE: All scales for nonverbal immediacy range from 1 to 7, with 1 representinglower levels of nonverbal immediacy. n = 72. N = 216.


and the nonverbal primacy model (except H5). Finally, a bivariate corre-lation tested the predicted positive relationship between expectancies andcomforting quality (H5).

Hypotheses 1 and 2: Main Effects Tests

A 3 (NVI: high, moderate, low) x 3 (VPC: high, moderate, low) ANOVAexamined the overall main effects of NVI and VPC on the dependentmeasure of comforting quality (H1 and H2). Results suggested a maineffect for both nonverbal immediacy, F(2, 207) = 6.04, p < .05, η2 = .05, andperson centeredness, F(2, 207) = 19.41, p < .001, η2 = .15. Two linear con-trasts were conducted to further corroborate the results generated by theANOVA. These analyses produced linear effects for nonverbal immediacy,F(1, 215) = 17.29, p < .001, η2 = .07, and for person centeredness, F(1, 215)= 31.20, p < .001, η2 = .12. Thus, H1 and H2 were supported (see Table 6for means and standard deviations).

Tests for the Combined Effects of Verbal Person Centerednessand Nonverbal Immediacy

To test the additive model, expectancy threshold model, and nonver-bal primary model, cell means were compared via contrasts. Because ofthe relatively large number of comparisons made, Figure 4 will be usedas a reference to summarize these results.

The additive effects model. To test this model (H3), a contrast analysiswas conducted with a contrast coefficient of –2 assigned to cell 1, –1 as-signed to cells 2 and 4, 1 assigned to cells 6 and 8, and 2 assigned to cell 9

TABLE 4Cell Means and Standard Deviations Associated

With the Person Centeredness Manipulation Check

Nonverbal immediacy

Low Moderate High


Low 1.26 .44 1.35 1.23 1.24 .64Moderate 4.10 .29 4.03 .09 4.08 .04High 6.22 1.42 6.50 .93 6.34 .94

NOTE: All scales for person centeredness range from 1 to 7, with 1 representing lower levelsof person centeredness. n = 24. N = 216.


(refer to Figures 1 and 4). The remaining cells (3, 5, and 7) were assigneda contrast coefficient of 0. The contrast was significant, t(207) = 6.74, p <.001, η2 = .18, and confirms H3. The cell means in Table 7 illustrate thatconditions involving low NVI and VPC were perceived as least comfort-ing followed by the condition involving moderate NVI and VPC. Condi-tions involving high NVI and VPC were perceived as qualitatively best.In particular, the combination of high NVI and VPC stood out as espe-cially good at providing quality comfort, whereas the combination con-taining low NVI and VPC was rated as especially poor. Only the mean incell 4 (low NVI and moderate VPC) did not conform to the predictedpattern.

The expectancy threshold model. The expectancy threshold model sug-gested that conditions not containing at least one level of either low NVIor low VPC will be perceived as qualitatively better than conditions con-taining at least one level of either low NVI or low VPC (H4). To test H4, acontrast was conducted with a coefficient of –4 assigned to cells 1, 2, 3, 4,and 7, and a coefficient of 5 assigned to cells 5, 6, 8, and 9 (refer to Figures2 and 4). The contrast was significant, t(207) = 5.25, p < .001, η2 = .11, eventhough two of the cell means did deviate from the predicted pattern. Spe-cifically, when confederates engaged in high VPC and low NVI (cell 7),they were not perceived to provide better comfort than when they en-gaged in moderate levels of both NVI and VPC (cell 5). Despite this, theoverall pattern of means fit the reasoning behind the expectancy thresh-old model.

Related to the expectancy threshold model, H5 predicted that the morecomforting behaviors conformed to expectations, the more they would

TABLE 5Marginal Means and Standard Deviations AssociatedWith the Person Centeredness Manipulation Check


Level M SD M SD

Low 1.28 .83 3.86 2.22Moderate 4.04 .18 3.96 2.30High 6.36 1.11 3.86 2.20

NOTE: All scales for person centeredness range from 1 to 7, with 1 representinglower levels of nonverbal immediacy. n = 72. N = 216.


be perceived as high in comforting quality. A bivariate correlation sup-ported this hypothesis, revealing a significant positive relationship be-tween expectedness and comforting quality, r = .63, p < .001

The nonverbal primacy model. The final set of hypotheses examined thepredicted primacy effect of NVI on comforting quality. Three compari-sons are relevant to this hypothesis (see Figure 3). To test H6a, a contrastcoefficient of –1 was assigned to cell 2, whereas cell 4 was assigned a 1.The remaining cells were assigned contrast coefficients of 0 (refer to Fig-ure 4). This contrast produced a significant result for H6a, t(207) = -2.27,p < .05, η2 = 03, but in the opposite direction of what was predicted inH6a. That is, perceived comforting quality was higher in the moderateNVI and high VPC condition than in the high NVI and moderate VPCcondition. Thus, H6a was not supported. The second contrast tested H6bby assigning a contrast coefficient of –1 to cell 3, whereas cell 7 was as-signed a contrast coefficient of 1. The remaining cells were assigned con-trast coefficients of 0 (refer to Figure 4). The contrast test was not signifi-cant, t(207) = -1.00, p = .32. Finally, to test H6c a contrast coefficient of –1was assigned to cell 6, whereas cell 8 was assigned a contrast coefficientof 1. The remaining cells were assigned contrast coefficients of 0. Thiscontrast was also not significant, t(207) = -.45, p = 65. Thus, none of thehypotheses connected to the nonverbal primacy model were supported.

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrated that NVI and VPC are important vehiclesthrough which care and concern are communicated to emotionally dis-tressed people. What makes these findings noteworthy is that they werethe result of face-to-face interactions rather than pen-and-paper assess-

TABLE 6Marginal Means and Standard Deviations for Comforting Quality

Associated With the Nonverbal Immediacy and Person Centeredness


Level M SD M SD

Low 4.59 1.42 4.92 1.25Moderate 5.31 .93 5.13 1.29High 5.70 1.19 5.54 1.01

NOTE: All scales for comforting quality range from 1 to 7, with 1 representing lower levelsof comforting quality. n = 72. N = 216.


ments. During face-to-face conversations of an actual distressing event,upset people are likely to be much more cognitively and emotionally pre-occupied than they are when completing a questionnaire. Thus, thisstudy’s findings provide an important replication and extension that sup-ports the ecological validity of the links between NVI, VPC, and qualitycomforting behavior. The study also suggests that the linear effects forNVI and VPC hold across a multitude of emotionally distressful events.Three models were advanced to examine the combined influence of NVIand VPC on perceived comforting quality. Results generally supportedboth the additive effects model and the expectancy threshold model, butfailed to support the nonverbal primacy model.

The Additive Effects Model

The additive effects model suggested that the low NVI and VPC con-dition would be perceived as less comforting than the low and moderatecombinations of NVI and VPC. The hypothesis also predicted that thehigh NVI and VPC condition would be perceived as better in terms ofcomforting quality than the high and moderate combinations of NVI andVPC. These predictions were generally supported.

Although these predictions may seem to make common sense, theyhave important implications for theory and research on comforting com-munication. These results suggest that people who use highly person-centered messages might not necessarily be perceived as providing thebest support unless they also use high levels of NVI, and vice versa. Con-sequently, it behooves researchers to examine both nonverbal and verbalmessages simultaneously when studying comforting behavior.

TABLE 7Cell Means and Standard Deviations for Comforting Quality

Associated With Nonverbal Immediacy and Person Centeredness

Nonverbal immediacy

Low Moderate High


Low 4.29 1.43 4.41 1.58 5.06 1.17Moderate 5.12 .95 5.23 .89 5.59 .94High 5.38 1.10 5.73 .59 5.97 .68

NOTE: All scales for comforting quality range from 1 to 7, with 1 representing lower levelsof comforting quality. n = 72. N = 216.


The Expectancy Threshold Model

According to the expectancy threshold model, social norms and rulesreflecting politeness and common courtesy shape perceptions of whatconstitutes appropriate comforting behavior. These social norms form thebasis of the behavioral scripts people use to interact with one another,and as suggested by Hale and Burgoon (1984), such behavioral scriptsessentially prescribe that people use at least moderate levels of NVI andVPC. Based on these assumptions, the expectancy threshold model pre-dicted that combinations including at least one low level of NVI or VPCwould be perceived as inferior to all other conditions. Overall, the resultsconfirmed this prediction, but with a caveat. It appears that it is impor-tant that either NVI or VPC be enacted at a high rather than moderatelevel. The combination of moderate NVI and VPC was perceived as some-what lower in comforting quality. Of course, the ideal comforting mes-sage appears to include high levels of both NVI and VPC. A correlationalso showed that when comforting behaviors were evaluated as highlybeneficial in terms of comforting, they also seemed highly expected. Thisstrong positive correlation provides important evidence supporting thebasic idea behind the expectancy threshold model—that if behaviors donot meet or exceed normative expectations, they will be perceived as lowin comforting quality.


erso

n C

ente

redn

ess

Low Moderate High

Low

Moderate

High

1 4 7

2 5 8

3 6 9

Figure 4. Experimental Cell Design


The Nonverbal Primacy Model

The nonverbal primacy model explored possible primacy effects of NVIon perceived comforting. The reasoning here was that NVI behaviors areprimary vehicles for expressing emotion (Andersen & Guerrero, 1998;Burgoon et al., 1996). Given that emotional change lies at the heart of thecomforting process, it was argued that NVI behaviors might better com-municate such emotional change than verbal messages. However, resultsindicated no support for the hypotheses associated with the nonverbalprimacy model. Indeed, the significant results for H6a suggest a possibleprimacy effect for VPC, although this finding should be interpreted withcaution given that it was in a direction opposite to what was predicted.

In hindsight, the lack of nonverbal primacy makes sense for at leasttwo important reasons. First, relationship type might influence levels ofNVI and VPC. Intimates might express and consequently interpret non-verbal immediacy and verbal person centeredness differently than strang-ers. Second, NVI and VPC might serve different purposes in comfortingsituations. NVI behaviors might be particularly important for communi-cating care, warmth, and liking, but person-centered messages might alsoinduce re-appraisal, an argument that has recently been advanced byBurleson and Goldsmith (1998). An examination of the contextual factorsused in the current study provides some support for this argument. Inthe experiment, participants reflected upon and subsequently disclosedtheir feelings surrounding an emotionally upsetting event. In cases wherethe confederate was highly immediate and person centered, the experi-mental context represented a supportive conversational environment forthe participants. Indeed, the highly person-centered confederate was spe-cifically trained to use messages that encouraged participants to furtherexplore their negative feelings associated with the upsetting events. Inline with Burleson and Goldsmith (1998), such a safe and comfortablecontext is crucial for effective social support, because such a context al-lows emotionally distressed people to reflect upon their difficult feelingswithout fear of verbal critique or face loss. This, in turn, might set in mo-tion a re-appraisal process in which people explore alternative perspec-tives associated with the difficult experience. Viewed this way, highlyperson-centered messages might be particularly important because theyserve to discursively construct alternative viewpoints for the emotionallyupsetting event. For example, person-centered questions, such as “Howdid that make you feel?” or “What about the situation made you so up-set?” allow emotionally upset persons to further explore and subsequentlyre-evaluate their negative feelings associated with the difficult event.


The Additive Effects and Expectancy Threshold Models

The additive effects model accounted for 18% of the variance in com-forting quality. The expectancy threshold model, by contrast, accountedfor 11%, but these two models are not incompatible with one another. Itappears that the strength of the main effects for both NVI and VPC pre-dict some of the variability in comforting quality as suggested by the ad-ditive effects model. However, these data also indicate that one reasonfor these main effects is that relatively high levels of NVI and VPC areexpected in situations wherein people disclose distressing events. Con-sidered together, these two comforting models clearly suggest that peopleprefer a conversational partner who expresses care and concern by ver-bally validating their feelings, encouraging the expression of painful feel-ings, and expressing positive affect through NVI. Furthermore, the addi-tive effects model also suggests that people who “say all the right empa-thizing things,” but attend to the newspaper or the television, will not beperceived as comforting by their conversational partner. Similarly, a con-versational partner who is nonverbally immediate but says all the “wrongthings” will not be perceived as comforting as well. The expectancy thresh-old model complements these findings—people expect others to engagein high levels of both NVI and VPC. Indeed, high levels of NVI and VPCwere not only evaluated as qualitatively best, but also as highly expected.

Implications of the Research Findings

Given that nonverbal behaviors significantly influence perceptions ofwhat constitutes good comforting, this experiment has important theo-retical, methodological, and practical implications. Theoretical implica-tions clearly point to the importance of both NVI and VPC when it comesto determining comforting quality. A theory of comforting behavior shouldtake into consideration that comforting does not only come in the form ofverbal messages, such as VPC, but that it is equally important to considerNVI behaviors. In short, it is not enough to assume that verbal messagesalone shape comforting behavior. Consequently, when conceptualizingcomforting, researchers need to include verbal as well as nonverbal fea-tures of comforting behavior.

The study also extends the contextual boundaries of NVI. To date, thisexperiment is the first of its kind to systematically explore the impact ofNVI in comforting contexts. Results clearly suggest that NVI behaviorsin the form of head nods, smiles, forward leans, and eye contact signifi-cantly shape perceptions of what makes for good comforting. Future stud-ies should examine whether NVI is effective primarily because it com-municates warmth and liking, whereas VPC is effective in part because it


helps people cognitively re-appraise the distressing event. Indeed, NVImight be the primary vehicle through which empathy, liking, and warmthare communicated, whereas VPC might largely function to induce re-ap-praisal.

The experiment also points to the complexity of comforting in face-to-face interactions. Past research findings indicated that linear trends forVPC explained between 50% and 98% of within-subjects variance in com-forting quality ratings of appropriateness, effectiveness, sensitivity, andhelpfulness (Jones & Burleson, 1997). These findings were based on par-ticipants’ self-reported assessments in response to hypothetical comfort-ing situations. Comparatively, the linear trends of VPC accounted for only13% of the variance in comforting quality in the current experiment. Inaddition, the combined effects of both NVI and VPC accounted for about20% of the variance in comforting quality, even though the manipula-tions in this study were very strong. Because the present study’s findingswere based on evaluations of comforting behaviors in face-to-face situa-tions, they suggest that the dynamics of comforting might be much morecomplex than has been previously suggested by self-report studies. Fac-tors other than NVI and VPC might further shape evaluations of whatconstitutes good comforting in real-life situations. For example, variablessuch as level of attraction and the nature of the emotionally distressfulevent might considerably influence comforting quality and should beexplored in future studies.

Limitations and Future Directions

Experimental research manipulating multiple behavioral variables hasbeen criticized for generating differences in the strength of the effects as aproduct of experimental manipulations that do not conform to valid, real-life behaviors. For this reason it is important to further examine the com-bined influence of VPC and NVI on comforting quality. Only then can weglean a clear picture of the relative contributions of verbal and nonverbalbehavior during comforting interactions. Nonetheless, it is intriguing thatthe present study revealed no evidence for a nonverbal primacy effecteven though the effect size associated with the NVI manipulation wasstronger than the effect size for the VPC manipulation. It is also notewor-thy that the effect size associated with the main effect for VPC was largerthan the effect size associated with the main effect for NVI, despite thefact that our manipulation checks would suggest that the manipulationfor NVI was the stronger of the two.

Future studies should also examine VPC and NVI in comforting situa-tions between relational partners. Although strangers do sometimes pro-vide comfort to one another, people mainly look to their closest friends


and their family for social support. Therefore, future research should ex-amine how NVI and VPC function as comforting devices in close rela-tionships.

Within close relationships, people also have more latitude in terms ofthe types of nonverbal behaviors that are appropriate to display. In thepresent study, we elected not manipulate touch because it could havebeen negatively interpreted in interactions between strangers, particu-larly cross-sex dyads. Yet, evidence from past studies suggests that touchis an important form of NVI in comforting interactions. For example, Dolinand Booth-Butterfield (1993) found that a pat on the arm or a hug bestpredicted nonverbal comforting behaviors among acquaintances. Thus,when acquainted friends or relational partners use touch as a way to com-municate concern, NVI may be an even more powerful predictor of com-forting quality than it was in this study. Thus, future studies investigat-ing emotional support in close relationships should include touch.

Finally, VPC might be effective because it serves a re-appraisal func-tion (Burleson & Goldsmith, 1998). If person-centered messages play animportant re-appraisal role in the comforting process, then researchersneed to reconsider outcome measures that have been used in assessingcomforting quality. Specifically, measures of appropriateness, effective-ness, helpfulness, and sensitivity might not adequately capture what con-stitutes good comforting. Instead, it might be more useful to assess com-forting quality by developing and subsequently using measures of emo-tional change and cognitive re-appraisal as ways of assessing comfortingquality.

Conclusion

Attempting to provide emotional support is an important form of com-munication that can alleviate a distressed person’s negative affect or makethe distressed person feel even worse. This study suggests that both VPCand NVI are instrumental in determining the quality of comforting be-havior. Specifically, individuals who use high levels of both VPC and NVIwere evaluated as providing the best emotional support, whereas indi-viduals using low levels of both VPC and NVI were evaluated as provid-ing the worst emotional support. Results also suggest that strangers evalu-ate comforting behavior as more effective to the extent that it is expectedand socially normative. VPC and NVI may operate somewhat differentlyin close relationships where behaviors such as touch are more normative.


NOTES

1. The coding scheme also contains 3 sub-levels under each of the three major levels. Forthe present study, VPC was manipulated only at the three major category levels.

2. Five additional characteristics define highly person-centered comforting messages(Burleson & Samter, 1985a). First, highly person-centered comforting messages project agreater degree of involvement with distressed others and are more listener-centered, as op-posed to low person-centered comforting messages, which are more speaker-centered. Sec-ond, highly person-centered messages are evaluatively neutral, and explicate situations andfeelings without evaluating the feelings and the persons experiencing these feelings. Third,highly person-centered messages are more feeling-centered, focusing on the affective reac-tions of the distressed other toward the situation rather than the situational properties ofthe distressful incident. Fourth, highly person-centered comforting messages are generallymore accepting of the distressed other, legitimizing the distressed other’s feelings and opin-ions. Finally, highly person-centered comforting messages may contain a cognitively orientedexplanation of the feelings experienced by the distressed other; such explanations may helpthe distressed other to gain some psychological distance from his or her distressed affectivestates (Burleson, 1994a).

3. Past research using paper-and-pencil measures found small but significant sex differ-ences in perceptions of comforting behavior (see Kunkel & Burleson, 1999). Although ourfocus in the present study was not on sex differences, we conducted preliminary analyses todetermine variations in perceived comforting quality as a function of participant sex. Theseanalyses produced nonsignificant results.

4. Of the initial 267 dyads, 51 were deleted from the final analysis. Specifically, five dy-ads were deleted because the participants detected the deception (largely as a result of sen-sitization to experimental studies), one dyad was deleted due to missing data, one dyadwas deleted on the participant’s request, 25 dyads were deleted due to experimental error(i.e., participants wore hats, confederates admitted to making errors in enacting the ma-nipulations, technical errors such as problems with the camera), and three participants werereleased from the experiment because they knew the confederates. Finally, 16 dyads wererandomly deleted because of oversampled cells. Most of the oversampling occurred in cells5, 8, and 9. If the oversampled cells were retained, participant sex would not have beenbalanced across the design. Thus, rather than leaving extra sources of variability in the de-sign, we elected to use equal cell sizes, which led to a total of 216 dyads (female participantn = 108, male participant n = 108) that were retained for the data analysis.

5. To ensure that sex was balanced across conditions, participants signed up for the ex-periment in blocks of time specified for men or women. Confederates drew conditions fromenvelopes marked as either “female” or “male” participant. When data for a particular par-ticipant was dropped (see note 4), a slip containing the lost condition was placed back intothe envelope. Thus, this experiment used random assignment with replacement.

6. Once the emotionally distressful event was identified, participants completed twoadditional questionnaires that asked them to identify their feelings toward the event and toappraise the emotionally upsetting event they were about to discuss. (This data is not in-cluded in the present study.) While participants prepared for the conversation, confeder-ates were told explicitly to write down those listening styles and strategies they wouldcommonly use when talking with friends about emotionally distressing events. In fact, con-


federates found a table in their questionnaire packet containing suggestions for high, mod-erate, and low NVI and VPC. Confederates were instructed to jot down notes for the condi-tion they were about to enact. This reference table allowed confederates to cognitively pre-pare for their role in the conversation with the participants.

7. In the past, four single-item outcome variables have frequently been used to measurecomforting message quality, namely appropriate vs. inappropriate, effective vs. ineffective,sensitive vs. insensitive, and helpful vs. unhelpful (Burleson & Samter 1985a, 1985b; Gold-smith & MacGeorge, 2000; Jones & Burleson, 1997). Because we wanted to use multiple-item scales, we expanded each of the four single-item measures. Specifically, two additionalitems related to each of the previously used measures of appropriateness, effectiveness,sensitivity, and helpfulness were developed. For example, the additional effectiveness itemsmeasured competence and capability, whereas the additional sensitivity items assessed per-ception and understanding. In addition, two items were added to the overall scale (cold-warm, supportive-unsupportive). Thus, we used 14 items to assess comforting quality. Increating this scale, our goal was to be able to use multiple-item scales to measure appropri-ateness, effectiveness, sensitivity, and helpfulness if a principal axis analysis showed theseto be separate factors. However, since the principal axis analysis showed all 14 items to loadon a single factor, a single scale measuring overall comforting quality was used.

REFERENCES

Albrecht, T. L., Burleson, B. R., & Sarason, I. G. (1992). Meaning and method in the study ofcommunication and social support. Communication Research, 19, 149–153.

Andersen, P. A. (1985). Nonverbal immediacy in interpersonal communication. In A. W.Siegman & S. Feldstein, (Eds.), Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 1–36).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Andersen, P. A. (1989, May). A cognitive valence theory of intimate communication. Paperpresented at the meeting of the International Network of Personal Relationships, IowaCity, IA.

Andersen, P. A. (1999). Nonverbal communication: Forms and functions. Mountain View, CA:Mayfield.

Andersen, J. F., Andersen, P. A., & Jensen, A. D. (1979). The measurement of nonverbalimmediacy. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 7, 153–180.

Andersen, P. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (1998). The bright side of relational communication:Interpersonal warmth as a social emotion. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.),Communication and emotion (pp. 305–324). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Andersen, P. A., Guerrero, L. K., Buller, D. B., & Jorgensen, P. F. (1998). An empirical com-parison of three theories of nonverbal immediacy exchange. Human Communication Re-search, 24, 501–535.

Applegate, J. L. (1980). Person-centered and position-centered teacher communication in aday care center. Studies in Symbolic Interactionism, 3, 59–96.

Barbee, A., Rowatt, T. L., & Cunningham, M. R. (1998). When a friend is in need: Feelingabout seeking, giving, and receiving social support. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero(Eds.), Communication and emotion (pp. 282–298). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Bernstein, B. (1974). Class, codes, and control (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 170–89). London: Routledge.Brown, P., & Lewinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cam-

bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations. Explications

and initial test. Human Communication Research, 4, 129–142.Burgoon, J. K., & Aho, L. (1982). Three field experiments on the effects of violations of con-

versational distance. Communication Monographs, 49, 71–88.


Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Woodall, W. G. (1996). Nonverbal communication: The unspokendialogue (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A., & Dillman, L. (1995). Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic interactionpatterns. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Burgoon, J. K., Walther, J. B., & Baesler, E. J. (1992). Interpretations and consequences ofinterpersonal touch. Human Communication Research, 19, 237–263.

Burleson, B. R. (1982). The development of comforting communication skills in childhoodand adolescents. Child Development, 53, 1578–1588.

Burleson, B. R. (1994a). Comforting messages: Significance, approaches, and effects. In B. R.Burleson, T. L. Albrecht, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Communication of social support: Messages,

interactions, relationships, and community (pp. 3–29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Burleson, B. R. (1994b). Comforting messages: Features, functions and outcomes. In J. A.

Daly & J. W. Wiemann (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. 135–161). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Burleson, B. R., & Goldsmith, D. J. (1998). How the comforting process works: Alleviatingemotional distress through conversationally induced reappraisals. In P. A. Andersen &L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Communication and emotion (pp. 246–275). Orlando, FL: AcademicPress.

Burleson, B. R., & Samter, W. (1985a). Consistencies in theoretical and naive evaluations ofcomforting messages. Communication Monographs, 52, 104-123.

Burleson, B. R., & Samter, W. (1985b). Individual differences in the perception of comfortingmessages: An exploratory investigation. Central States Speech Journal, 36, 39–50.

Cappella, J. N., & Greene, J. O. (1982). A discrepancy-arousal explanation of mutual influ-ence in expressive behavior for adult and infant-adult interaction. Communication Mono-graphs, 49, 89–114.

Coker, D. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (1987). The nature of conversational involvement and nonver-bal encoding patterns. Human Communication Research, 13, 463–494.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioralsciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, S., & Syme, S. L. (1985). Social support and health. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Dakof, G. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1992). Victims’ perceptions of social support: What is helpful

from whom? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 80–89.Dew, D., & Jensen, P. J. (1977). Phonetic processing: The dynamics of speech. Columbus, OH:

Merill.Dolin, D., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (1993). Reach out and touch someone: Analysis of non-

verbal comforting behaviors. Communication Quarterly, 41, 383–393.Goldsmith, D., & MacGeorge, E. (2000). The impact of politeness and relationship on per-

ceived quality of advice about a problem. Human Communication Research, 26, 234–263.Gottlieb, B. H. (1994). Social support. In A. E. Weber & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Perspectives on

close relationships (pp. 307–324). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Guerrero, L. K., Jones, S. M., & Burgoon, J. K. (2000). Responses to nonverbal intimacy changes

in romantic dyads: Effects of behavioral valence, degree of behavioral change, and ex-pectancy violation. Communication Monographs, 68, 325–346.

Hale, J. L., & Burgoon, J. K. (1984). Models of reactions to changes in nonverbal immediacy.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 287–314.

Jones, S. M., & Burleson, B. R. (1997). The impact of situational variables on helpers’ percep-tions of comforting strategies. Communication Research, 24, 530–555.

Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Kunkel, A. W., & Burleson, B. R. (1999). Assessing explanations for sex differences in emo-tional support: A test of the different cultures and skills specialization accounts. HumanCommunication Research, 25, 307–340.


Lewis, R. J., Derlega, V. J., Shankar, A., Cochard, E., & Finkel, L. (1997). Nonverbal correlatesof confederates’ touch: Confounds in touch research. Journal of Social Behavior and Per-sonality, 12, 821–830.

Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Noller, P. (1984). Nonverbal communication and marital interaction. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Patterson, M. L. (1983). Nonverbal behavior: A functional perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag.Patterson, M. L. (1995). A parallel model of nonverbal communication. Journal of Nonverbal

Behavior, 19, 3–29.Planalp, S., DeFransisco, V. L., & Rutherford, D. (1996). Varieties of cues to emotion in natu-

rally occurring situations. Cognition and Emotion, 5, 435–465.Rogers, C. (1995). A way of being. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.Spitzberg, B. H., & Hecht, M. (1984). A component model of relational competence. Human

Communication Research, 10, 575–599.Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication.

New York: Norton.Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal

communication. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explication and test of a model of communication competence.

Human Communication Research, 3, 195–213.Winstead, B. A., Derlega, V. J., Sanchez-Hucles, J., & Clarke, E. (1992). Friendship, social

interaction, and coping with stress. Communication Research, 19, 193–211.Woods, E. (1996). Associations of nonverbal decoding ability with indicators of person-

centered communication ability. Communication Reports, 9, 12–22.Woods, E. (1998). Communication abilities as predictors of verbal and nonverbal perfor-

mance in persuasive interactions. Communication Reports, 11, 167–178.Yankeelov, P. A., Barbee, A. P., Cunningham, M. R., & Druen, P. B. (1995). The influence of

negative medical diagnosis and verbal and nonverbal support activation strategies onthe interactive coping process. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19, 243–261.

The Effects of Nonverbal Immediacy and Verbal Person Centeredness in the Emotional Support Process

Documents

Transcript of The Effects of Nonverbal Immediacy and Verbal Person Centeredness in the Emotional Support Process