Journal 1

224

Chapter 11

Selling Yourself Nonverbally

In an interview presented by CBS ielevision on November 4 1979 CBS R · , correspondent

og;,~ Mudd aske~ ~ena~?r Ted Ke~nedy, "What's the present state of vour man·1age, Sen- ator· Kenne~y n~phed, ':"ell, I think that, uh, it's a, Uh, uh, we've had um, some uh, dif- ficult Uh,~· umes but I th~n,k we uh, have uh, oat: I think been able to make some uh, very g~~d orog1ess anc1 uh, Uh, it~ uh, uh, I ~ould say that it's uh, uh, it's it's um delighted that \\ e re able to, to share, share the time and the, the relationship that we do share" (CBS Tel _ •=~!~~ e

. The voe~ i~,age Ke~ned~ proJec~ed was highly undesirable for a man trying to sell himself as a c1ed1ble pres1dent1al candidate. Consider for a moment how Kennedy's vocal message might have affected his credibility in your eyes. Did his frequent hesitat1o~s stam- mer~ng, .and.speech errors make him seem more or less competent, trustwoithy, and dyna- mic. Did hts vocal message help convince you that he was seeking to give Mudd a forthnght and boniest answer?

Kennedy's credibility _was senously dan1aged because 11e proJecied an image he quite cJ~arly did not wish to project. Students of mine who have analyzed Kennedy's Interview with Mudd approach unannn1ty in the Judgments they maJ.(e: Kennedy's vocal cues as- sumed a central role in communicating an image of evasiveness and indecision that is tm- acceptable for a presidential candidate. The student analysts became convinced that tlle negative 1mpress1on that Kennedy made was shaped pnmarily by his nonverbal communi- catron rather than by the words tha1 he uttered.

If you disagree with those Judgments, think once again about Senator Kennedy's re- sponse to Roger Jv.[udd's question. Kennedy did not say that the question made him uncom- forta_ble to the point of being amoous; he did not say that he would be forced to be indirect evasive, and untruthful in his response; and he did not say that his mamage was lffeparabl; broken. Nonetheless, those messages were all clearly communicated. They were commu- nicated un1nrentionally and implicitly through the communrcat:lve medium of Kennedy's vocal cues.

Chapter Ji/Selling Yourse(fNonverbally 225

Senator Ted Kennedy 1s not the only contemporary political figure Whose credibility has been seriously damaged as. a result of a single appearance on national television. Con- sider the cases of former President Ronald Reagan and Senator Joseph Biden. President Reagan's credibility was so high before the Contragate controversy that 1t was probably un- equaled by any previous president. However, President Reagan·s credibility dropped pre- c1p1tous1y after his fateful press conference of November 19, 1986; Reagan never succeeded in resronng his personal credibility to its previous 11e1ghts after that press con- ference. Senator Biden destroyed his own credibility as a presidential candidate by his re- sponse to a single question In a single interview.

On July 19, 1988, Senator Biden appeared in a pnvare ho1ne in New Hampshire to give a short political speech and to be interviewed by the people assembled in the home; his ap- pearance was bemg recorded for later rebroadcast by C-SPAN II. Eiden seemed both an1- mared and relaxed as he began by delivering an exiemporaneous cainpaign speech. Then about halfway through a question-and-answer session, a person in the crowd said, "Senator, I have one real quick follow-up questidn. What law sc11001 did You attend and Where did you place in your class?" The tension generated by this question seemed to be reilecred in cries of "Who cares?" from Biden's supporters. Biden appeared to freeze for a minute; he licked his lips and then replied in a voice that was nouceably strident:

I think that I have a much higher IQ than you do. 1 was the only one in my class to have a full academic schotarshiv .... fl] ended uv in the top half of rnv class. 1 was the outstanding student in the political science devartment in the end of my last year, J graduated with three degrees from undergraduare school, 1 graduated with 165 credits and only needed 123 credits, and !would be delighted to sa down and comvare my IQ with yours if you like, Frank. (C-Span II, 1988)

Within a short t:lme 1t became apparent to reporters who checked the record that Sena- tor Biden had lied repeatedly tn responding to the question about his academic credentials; vrrtually every stateinent he made was verifiably false. For example, Biden finished 76th out of 85 in his law schooJ class rather than in the rop half as he c1a1med, 11e received two rather than three college degrees, and he did not win an award as the outstanding student tn his political science department. In this case, the verifiably false statements in his answer ro a single quest.loo so damaged his credibility that Senator Eiden was forced to withdraw a short time later as a candidate for the democratic nomination for president

The nonverbal portion of Biden·s message seemed to be particularly damaging to a man trying ro make a favorable impression as a credible presidential candidate. Senator Biden had been charming, animared, and affable up to the point that he responded to the quest:lon about his academic credentials. He smiled, he gesticulated, and he pontificated but 1n a pleasant way. In short, he co1nmun1cated nonverbally in such a way as to be likable and interpersonally attractive. The question about Biden's academic credentials tnggered a dra- matic change 1n his nonverbal corrnnunicatton style, however. He suddenly became nonver- bally aggressive. He becan1e the attacker. Indeed, Senator Biden's physical tenseness, strident voice, direct attack on his questioner, and defensive manner provided a clear signal to those attending the press conference 1n New Hampshire and those who watched it on television that Biden's tn1stworthiness had become the matter of oveniding concern.

226 Part 2/Develovmg the Successful Communicator

Next, consider the case of Presiden loo President" because the Amencan p:b~i~nald R~a~m~. R:agan had-been called the "Tef- sponsible for the misdeeds of his . seerne s1nclr~ed to hold him personally re- his first four years in office and ~:1~rid1tna~s. or even for his own Inrsdeeds. Throughout credibility had never been senously cha~l~ng~ds;:~n~ ter:, Presi~e~t Reagan's personal efforts to mislead the public with regard to h. . J e Con agate cns1s, and Reagan's own versial, however., that President Rea an, is ro e in o~~a.gate, soon became so contro- sustained attacJc. g s personal cred1b1hty came under repeated and

Reagan and his advisors recognized th t . rtv was se:ious. A.lthough the president ha~ a~:i~:~~~~d~he President's personal credibil- months, his advisors realized that they would h ng a ~ress conference for many ence was finally scheduled for November 19 s~~~6 ~~~~ ~c~ed.u~e one. The press confer- Reagan approached the podiunl at the ' £ e evis1on, 1986). As President things, at nun1mu:m: This would be the press con ~rence, he undoubtedly recognized two arid the c_entral issue in question was his~~:~~~:io~r~~~J~~~~ conference he had ever held,

President Reagan had earned the title of the "Gre C ,, peatedly demonstrated an ability to conununicate in a a~oi~=mu~icat~~d because he _had re- nety. of public situations H . an con i ent manner in a va-

cbanneJs of comrnunicati~n ~ ;e~~f~%~c:~~r~::e~~;: ~=taus~1 he used the nonverbal tered. He shook his head from side to side toe . ~eva e the words that he ut- a policy, and he nodded his head up and dow m~~~siz~ ~s disagree1nent with an action or used seemingly spontaneous aestures w 11 tln Id e wis ed others to agree with him. He

"" , e - me pauses and appro t tron to add emp11asis and believability t ~" ' pna e vocal:.modula-

• c • o uie points that he made. His air of confidence started with a see mi . .

that the s1nile and the low key but ngl~ genuine smile. Fnends and foes agreed - expressive bodily commu tJ. •

of the most likable presidents of all time. He rarel exhibited nica on helped make him one

been previously identified as tndicarors of anx1et~. In short, ~:s~~:~:~::~~r~s that have Great Communicator, seemed to personify the confident ubr eagan, the press conference of November 19, 1986. p ic man as he prepared for the

The press conference had hardly begun whe

;:::::~~:~~: ::~~o:~~~1~a~~:e~~ hes1tated"~!1~~~~~1:;;:::'d~:!1~;~::r ::~:~ vntually incoherent. At one po1nr dunn: ~:em;::: ~~~~:~~~~:nd at times he seemed to be Wallace came close to calling the President a liar W 11 , NBC news reporter Chns denial that he was trading arms for hostages the .UruateadcSetnoted that in spite of Reagan's

. h' ' ares always seemed to make a inaJ01 arms s ip~tent to Iran rm1nediately before a hostage was rel~ased. Chns ur II turned to the President and asked "A 11 . . na ace

P 'd R . ' ~ re we a to believe that that was JUSt a coincidence?"

res1 ent eagan replied: ·

Chns ... 1 did~ 't know anything ab~ut that until I saw the press on lt because we certainly nevl.r had any contact with anything of the kind And h S !R vaus d h k h' · · ,a· o eagan

d S es an sd a es is.head back and.forth honzontally as if to deny that the Untt- e' tates ha been shzpf!ing arms. to Iran/. There's. lt's;ust-ah. Ah. So. But ah Its ;ust that-ah-we dzd s01nething for-ah--a varticutar /reason/. , .

Chapter 11 !Selling Yourself Nonverbally 227

CBS reporter Bill Plante also addressed a question to President Reagan. Plante pref- aced his question to Reagan by not.log that President Reagan had said that the equipment that the United States shipped to han did not alter the military balance, but Plante wanted to touch on "several things." Bill Plante said, "The Unired States apparently condoned ship- ments by Israel and other countnes. So how can you say that 1t didn't break the law?"

President Reagan replied:

Bill, everything you have said here zs based on a supposition that is false. Ah. We did not condone and do not condone the shipment of arms from other countnes. Ana,- ah, as ro whar was the other point that vou~ah-made here ah f Reagan pauses with a confused look on his face as if to suggest that he has _forgotten Plante S question. He turns to Plante.for help and Planrn reminds him that the question had to do with the "miti-tank missiles"!. Oh, no. Ah-about that, it didn't ah, that it

didn ·r, ah [pause I that lt did vzotate the law.

The verbal portion of Reagan's communication in this interview can be JUdged on its own merits. Students of mine who have watched the interview agree that his verbal state- ments had a devastatingly negative impact on his perceived competence. You can make your own assessments of how Reagan's verbal commun1cat1on affected your perception of

his competence. Reagan's nonverbal commun1cat1on probably had an even more negative impact on his

perceived credibility-particularly his rrustworthiness and dynamism. If vou had watcl1ed this press conference, you might have wondered if you really were watching the man known as the Great Communicator. Almost all of the old and familiar nonverbal signs of confi~ dence were·gone. In their place were a.wide array of nonverbal behaviors known to com- municate uncertm.nty, discomfort, and anxiety. President Reagan·s eyes frequently shifted from side to side, he typically looked down while beginmng ro answer a questlon, he licked his lips frequently and was highly nonfluent, his eyes had a dull appearance, his voice com- municated doubt and uncertrunty, and, finally, President Reagan frequently had a confused

if not befuddled expression on his face. The interviews JUSt discussed dramatize the potentially powerful impact of nonverbal

cues on perceived credibility. Nonverbal factors are known to be particularly important for the person who wishes to be regarded as a leader. In fact, perceptions of leadership poreritial and leadership qualities are often more strongly affected by nonverbal than verbal cues (Gitter, Black, &Fishman. 1975). Both frequency and specific kinds of nonverbal cues have been shown to exert a srrong influence on perceptions of leadership (Bmrd, 1977).

Successful communication reQuires the development of an zmage of personal credibil- ity. As James Gray, Jr., wrote in The Winning Image (1982), "your image 1s a tool for com- municating and for reveaiing your inherent qualities, your competence, abilities, and leadership. It is a reflection of qualities that others associate with you. a reflection that bears long-lasting influence in your bid for success" (p. 6). You need not be a presidential candi- date to be concerned about the impact of your credibility on your bid for success.

My work as a communication consultant in a presidential campaign and as a commu- nication trainer of corporate salespeople bas convinced me that successful communicators

11

228 Part 2/Devetopmg the Successful Communicator

must master the art of selling the1nse1ves nonverbally. You will not, vote for the politician or buy fro1n the salesperson unless you find that person to be sufficiently credible.

This chapter focuses on the role of nonverbal communication in the development of personal credibility. The nonverbal commurucat1on behaviors of presidential candidates and corporate sales representatives are used to illustrate the specific perceptual effects of such behaviors on credibility. Specific guidelines for developing credibility are presented, and the nonverbat profile of the credible corrununicator rs highlighted.

If you doub1: the importance of credibility in personal selling, consider the case of the agntech salesperson in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. The prospect is a vegetable farmer in the valley who has more than 50,000 acres rn cultivahon. The salesperson must try roper~ suade the farmer to purchase a liquid hormone that will be sprayed on his vegetables and will allegedly irn:rease his yield by up to 25 percent. Because the liquid hormone ts a new product, results from field research are still limited. The farmer recognizes that a decision to use the salesperson's product on all of his vegetables will cost him manv thousands of dollars. He does .nor want to make the wrong dec1s1on.

Salespeople 1n t11e Rio Grande Valley who actually find t11emse1ves in such a selling s1tuat1on tell me that their personal credibility 1s frequently tJ1e critical issue. Thelf compa~ ny·s credibility migJ:it have been important in arranging the sales call, but it is th elf personal credibility that is of most concern to the farmers. Do the farmers find them to be knowl- edgeable and. trnstworthy enough to buy from them? One farmer told an agritech salesper- son, "I can·t buy from you. I give old Ned all of my business. He knows what he rs doing. I trust him. I give Ned all of my business because he has never done me wrong,"

The farmers ifound "old Ned" to be credible IJecause to them he was believable. Cred- ibility ts a measure of how believable you are to those with whom you interact. The deve1- op1nent of high credibility does not, of course, provide any assurance that you will achieve your objecttves.11any other factors mav also affect persuasive effectiveness (Brembeck & H.owell, 1976). Generally, 11owever, the higher your credibility, the greateryourchancesfor success as a versuader (Burgoon & Saine, 1978).

Dimensions of Credibility

Credibility is a concept that has been studied extensively by cornn1un1cation scholars for at least three decades. These scholars have disagreed about how many dimensions define cred- ibility and about the methodological procedures that should be used to discover such dimen- sions (Infante, Par.leer, Clarke, Wilson, & Natho, 1983; Liska, 1978; Tucker, 1972). There does seem to be a consensus among credibility sc1101ars with regard to two important defin1- tional points, however: (a) the two most important dimensions of credibility are comverence and trustworthiness; (2) competence 1s clearly the more important di1nens1on of credibility.

Although comvetence and trustworthiness are clearly the two most important compo- nents of credibility, a third component, dynamism, is also frequently cited by speech con1- mun1cation scholms (Brembeck & Howell, 1976). Therefore, credibility 1s defined in this book by the three components JUSt identified.

We should note that Infante (1980) argued that dynamism scales are evaluative scales that measure how "potent" a communicator's behavior is. He maintained that dynanus1n

Chapter 11 /Selling Yourself Nonverbally 229

d . " 1 person perception set" that applies to scales should, therefore, be include in the g~n:r:tworthiness scales are properly used as 1mpress1on fonnauon, whereas competence~; at:ude roward tile commun1cat1on source. meas-\lrements of a communication r~~1verort (1966) that identified two defining dimen-

McCros~e: .and Dunham's spe~1aut~:i·1tauveness and trustworthiness or character- sions of cred1b1htv--con1petence 0 . . . N t nl did McCroskeY and Dun- bas proven to be a benchmark for credi~l.1t:::s:s~~~· tw~ ~o:t i1nportanr dimensions of ham identify comperence and trustwor fin accounted for by the two factors sug- credibility, but also the figures they cite or van~nc~ as trustworthiness. Although as many

ested that competence is almost twice as impor an - . . . (Bur oon g . - f d.b.l"t have been identified in emp1ncal research g • as five dimensions o er~ 1 .iiy ·eshasbeenthatcompetenceandtrusr- 1976), the most common finding I~ subsed~~:~ss1~:: of credibility (Lu1 & Standing, 1989; worthiness are the two central def1n1ngph·1r & Dho1akia 1978). As was pointed our in McCroskey & Young, 1981; Sternthal, I ips. derance ~f impression managen1ent re- ch 10 presston manage.ment, the p_repon apter on Im fl db the two dimensions of co1npetence and searchers also conclude that credibility is de ·1ne _Yde ti'fied as a third but much less unpor-

rtl · B se dynamism has also been l n trustwo 1iness. ecau ti . redibility will be treated as tnree- rant dimension than competence and trustwor uness, c

dimensional in this chapter. amic a commuiucator is Judged to be will vary, How competenr, trustwo1thy, and dvn tattoo or arnzattonal affiliation, personal ap-

depending on such factor~ as person~~~~:anve ~eha~1ors. Although individuals have the pearan_ce, and, most impo~tantty, coin trot over thetr perceived credibility, we should recog- potennal to exercise considerable con_ r ties or charactensttcs of the source. On n1ze that credibility ts not defin:d by. t~herent qua I t of the message sender bY Ille the contrary, credibility or behevabihty ts the percep ion

receiver. ti . s and dynamisrri. can be positivelv or A person·s perceived_compeie~ce. ~~s:o~~~:~-s, co1nmun1cation. For example, pro-

negativety affected in a given s1tua ton·- th lectures will lower thetr perceived com- fessors who provide tnaccurare tnformauon in eiti'.ustworthiness and dynamism inay varY

d' · d 1' rce1ved competence. ' · petence. An in tv1 ua s pe · t ation· therefore. those rerms may be from extremelv high to extremely tow in. a. ~1ven si u , properly identified as dimensions of credibility.

Competence d·b·r I dividuals who are recognized as ex-

Competence is an important d_in1ens1~n of ere~ I rt~.se~y zncomvetence is a word with un- perts on a given sub. ject insprre confidence. onve -s' associated with excellence. For

1 society comperence l flattenng connotations. n our. ' d f their academic excellence receive such · · th tare widely recognize or

example, umversitres a f ltv members have been JUdged to be unusually recognition in large part because their acu

competent. . . al' . - d level of competence may be assessed As Table 11.1 suggests, an ind1v1du s pe1cetivefl ct how competent qualified, well-

. ·d set of scales tha re e ' by rating that ind1vi ual on a . .

1 . d d to be When individuals exhibit commu-

1nformed. and intelligent tha1 ind1vidua IS JU ;e t thetr.competence, tl1etr competence rat- nicat1ve behaviors that raise senous doubts a ou

ings usually drop sharply.

230 Part 2/Developmg the Successful Communtcator

TABLEll.1 lV[easuring Personal Credibility

Dimensions of Cre.dibi!ity

Comperence

1. competent/inco-mpetent

2. Qualified/unqualified

3. well-informed/poorly mformect 4. mtelligenuUmntelligem

Trustworthiness

L honest/dishonest

2. straightforwardlevasrve

3. trustwor!:hv/untnlstworthy 4. smcere/insmcere

Dynamism

l. assertiveiunassertive

2. bold/thnid

-'· forceful/meek

4. active/inactive

Commun1cator·s Name

Initial Credibility

Terminal Credibility

.Until recently, competence was thought to be manifest content of a person·s perceived almost solely according to the

speech commun1catio Th much relevant ami useful informati d . . . n. e key questions. were (a) how familiar ts the individual with th to~ oes an individual have on a given suqject (b) how

a Inlorrnanon and (c) d t . . ' mation effectively to support carefuU qualifie, . oes he indiv1dua1 use that infor- that our nonverba_l communication of:en exerts~ ~nerahzations? We now know, however, are perceived to be. amanc influence on now competent we

In the 1968 presidential campaign Richard Ni , of the poteritial of nonverbal cues to h• N' xon s advisors made unprecedented use

en ance ixon's pe d sors recognized tt1at many Americans do ot rceive competence. Nixon's advr- very croseJy, but they may be strongly aff:-Cte:~n~tor ~e conrent of a politician's speech ally. Thus, Joe McGinn1ss wrote that y mphcrt messages communicated v1su-

{the/ words would be the same ones Nixon alwa s ranee speech. But they would ll fi y used~the words of the accep-

a seem resh and li l b tures Would flash on the SC"een h ·z :.r· ve y ecause a senes of still PlC-

· _ '' w z e lvlxon spoke lf ·1 Pennit television to create a N: · 1 were done nght, it would ~ ixon zmage that was enttret

wonts .... The flashing pictures would be care y zndependent of the s1on that somehow Nixa fally selected to create the imvres-

. n represented competenc fi (McG1nn1ss, 1969, p. 85) e, respect or tradition, serenity.

Chavter II/Selling Yourself Nonverbally 231

Trustworthiness

Not too long ago, a recent acquaintance invited me to go deep-sea fishing with him 1n the Gulf of Mexico. I raised some questions about the safety of such a venture in a relatively small boat. He understood that my unstated question (Did I trust hiin enough to go deep- sea fishing with him?) was more important than nly implicit questions about his compe- tence as a seaman. I have not yet answered that question in my own mind. I do recognize, however, that my response will be determined by how trustworthy I judge hi1n to be.

As a dimension of credibility, trustworthiness is a ineasure of our character as seen by those persons with whom we interact. Our presumed level of trustworthiness is based on an assessment of our personal qualities, intennons. and attitudes. The dominant sources of in- fo1mation that are used to detennine how trustworthy people are JUdged to be inay be non- verbal (McMahan, 1976), because individuals will not usually tell you how 11onest or sincere they acrually are. Their actions are usually more nnportant than their words.

As Table ll.l 1ndicates, you can assess a person's perceived level of trustworthiness by raung thar individual on a set of scales that reveal how l1onest, straightforward, trust- worthy, and sincere you Judge that individual to be. Successful co1nmun1caiors almost in- variably receive high ratings on this dhnens1on of credibilitv.

Dynamism

The third dimension of credibility-dynamzsm--d.efines people's credibility or nnage In terms of the level of confidence they are perceived to have. The ability to project a feeling of confidence 1s important beca11se 1t is apt to trigger a reciprocal feeling of confidence in those with whom we communicate. Further, the more dynamic we are perceived to be, the more credible we are apt to be. According to one authonty, the "shy, introverted, soft-spoken individuai is generally perceived as less credible than the assertive, extroverted, and force- ful individual. The great leaders Ill history have generally been dynamic people. They were assertJ.ve and dynaffilc people" (De Vito, 1980).

A commun1cator;s level of dynamism can be accurately assessed by rating that individ- ual on a set of scales that reflect how asse1Uve, bold, forceful, and active he or she ISJUdged to be. The meek may ultimate! y inl1ent the earth, but for the inoi:nent, at least, they have a serious credibility proble1n. Political satirists who delighted in their cancatures of the 1984 presidential candidate Walter Mondale as weak and indecisive obviously recognized the importance of dynam1sn1 in shaping perceptions of credibility. In the 1988 presidential campaign, George Bush was the frequent target of political satirists because of a dvnmnism deficit so senous that he was widely perceived to be a "wimp." Such caricatures had a hu- morous impact precisely because of the incongruous and implausible image conjured up by presidential candidates so lacking 1n dynamism.

The development of a communicator's credibility requnes that individual dimensions of credibility be assessed at two points in time: Initial credibility is the credibility the commu- nicator possesses before communicauon begins. Terminal credibility is the credibilitv that the communicator 1s seen to possess an er communication occurs 1n a given situation. Tenn1- nal credibility is the product of the com1nun1cator's initial credibility and the credibility that was derived as a result of the individual's communicative behaviors (De Vito, 1980).

232 Part 21 Develoµmg the Successful Communicator

The scales l!n Table 11.l·should be 11 credibility. Write in the name of th. e co sed _to inake an accurate evaluation of a person's

- mmun1cator and t th d" ·d measuring level of competenc. e trust th' , ra e e rn ivr ual on the 12 scales

• wor iness and dyna1msm Th · · " should be 10 the Initial Credibility column. '' · e in1tia1 set of ratings

Imagine that the 12 sets oftenns are on 12 s b. scale to rate the person wr"th a

7 t .d ·r eparate rpolar scales. Use a seven-point

• 01entiythetermonth1ft·d r· identify the term on the right side of th f e. e SI e o the scale and a l to extremely compi'tent before com e scale. or example, if you Judge an individual to be

the Initial Credi!;ility cOiumn. If ;,~n~~~~~~ ::~~n:, you would put a 7 in the first blank 1n competent put a 4 in the same blank A w11ether the person rs co1npetent or in- rece1ve a r~tlng of I. Any value from. 7 thperson perceived as extremely incompetent would

rough 1 may be used After the co.mmunrcat.Ion rs completed cover u f .

again in the Ternnnal Credibility colu ; l . !Pd the irst column and rate the person - · mn . .1.ou s iou then have a b f af

of the communicator·s-credibility. e ore-and- ter profile

Illustrating the Impact of Nonverbal Cues on Credibility

Presidennal candi:dates engage in the ty e of ers . interest in this COllntry. Millions of peo~le s~d ~~al selh?g th~t has generated widespread those people then make their own Jud Y e candidates efforts to sell th.emselves; .,. gments as to how the candidates· co lected t11etr credibility Because of the h' 1 .. b .1

. ' rnmurucation af-

forts, the presidentiai debates represent~~~:;~; :e~c~ef :~; i~l:~~d:tes~ commun1cauve ef- can affect credibility. a rng ow nonverbal cues

1976~ter the first t~1ev1sed presidential debate between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford in , was contacted by Rafshoon Adve ti R f h

that campaign. As the Rafsho r sing. a s oon was Carter's media advisor in

~;t~::.~:1~a~:~1:::v~;~,:::~~:~2::~:;;;:~:~~~::~~~~~,o~:~t~o~~db:;:~b~:; !:~~~onal factors that are usually tl~ought :~::c~::~:~:~t~~~r:a~~=:~;~~o~~: ~~ ;~: genera~:::t~~~~~~:a~~~d command of his infonnation, and he took pains to qualify the

In terms of hi:; speech commu 1 C of Gerald Ford N· th nica ion, arter appeared to have been at !east the equal loss in the sec~nd one eless, the polls showed that Carter had lost the first debate, and a chances. The reqm'~:ir~~ :eu~ai:hoaosenous and possibly catastrophic blow to Carter;s

"' · n representative was srmp!e Would I al C ter's nonverbal cues in the first d b - · an yze ar- used to enhai1ce Carter's credibil~tya~~ lt~~:~~~~d a:::~~:? a nonverbal profile that might be

The Selling of Presidential Candidates

~~:;: :~~~~!~~~;~~~ ~~~~d:ho ~~proached the first presidenri.al debate with some senous irists wondered aloud whether~ does raised questions abou.t his con1petence. Political sat-

or was smart enough to think and chew u ilme. He was pictured on Saturday Night Live as an amiable but uncoor1in~t:~ ~~~~~~

r I

Chapter Ji/Selling Yourself Nonverbally 233

who fell off a ladder onto the Whiie House Chnstmas tree while trying ro tnm it. Few had forgotten the satisfaction Lyndon Johnson seemed to get fro1n saying that Gerald Ford had plaved much too much football "without a helmet."

Ford's own actions seen1ed to suggest that he might have been competent enough to have been a U.S. congressman from Michigan but raised doubts about his competence as president. Newspaper phorographs frequently showed Ford hitting his llead on the door of the presidential helicopter wllen exiling or falling on the ski slopes of Colorado. Some pho- tos even showed one of his golf balls bouncing off the head of a spectator after an errant tee shot. Ford made matters even worse by his propensity for making such gaffes as appearing before a political rally in Nebraska and solemnly ren1arking 11ow pleased he was to be in Kansas. Things were so bad at one point that Ford reportedly said he really emoyed "watcll- 1ng" something on radio (Schlenker, 1980).

As the candidates approached the firsr presidential debate, there seemed good reason to believe that Gerald Ford had a senous credibility problem. The inedia had frequently de- picted Ford as marg1nallv competent, at best. In contrast, his opponent. Jimmv Carter, was thought to possess a first-rate mind. Aside from an adm1ss1on that he was occasionally over- con1e by "lustful" thoughts, Carter had done little to damage his personal credibility, whic11 had not been challenged as frequentlv or persistently as Ford's. Although one of Carter's opponents in the presidential pnmanes had run a television spot thar showed Carter talking out of both sides of his mouth, his trusrworthiness had not become an issue .

My careful analysis of the videotape of the first Ford-Carter debate resulted in so1ne unant1c1pated conclusions (CBS Telev1s1on, 1976). Gerald Ford projected an image of supenor credibility. He did so by skillful use of visual cues. In contrast, Ji1nmy Carter's nonverbal cormnunication was so 1neffecnve as to raise senous questions about his compe- tence, trustworthiness, and dyna1msm. Because I assessed the candidates· eye behaviors, gestures, postures, and vocal cues to be the nonverbal factors that n1ost strongly affected the images they proJected, mv analysis of Ford's and Carter's nonverbal behaviors focused on

those factors. As I have already indicated in Chapter 3, eye behaviors are known to affect strongly

the way we are perceived. The eye behaviors of the two candidates conrrasted strildngly 111 the first debate. Carter allnost always paused and looked down or away before answenng a question. The characreristlc direct.Ion of Carter's gaze was downcast when not speaking; in~ siead of looking at Ford when Ford was speaking, Carter stared off into space or down at his notes. Carter also exhibited a high blink rate and often appeared shifty eyed. Ford, 1n contrast, sustained direct eve contact with the reporters when answenng their quest10ns and

looked at Carter when Carter was speaking. In my recormnendatrons to Carter's media advisors, I emphasized that Carter nlust stop

looking down at the beginning of each answer. must susrain eve contact with Ford while Ford is speaking, and must avoid the downcast eyes in all s1tuat1ons during the second pres~ idential debate. To look down before answenng a quesnon and to exhibir shifty eyes while answenng would likely affect Carter's perceived competence and trustworthiness negatively (Burgoon & Saine, 1978). The unwillingness to establish or maintain eye conract with Ford dunng tile first debate quite clearly suggested a Jack of assertiveness and even timidity, both of which are associated with the nondynainic individual. Worst of all, Carter's characrens- tically downcast eves connoted qualities inconsistent with the desired i1nage of a man trv1ng

234

Pact 2/DMtoomg th' Succ,,.ful Commumcatoc ~. . ---------------------~-----'"----'------'------ I . . __ Chapter JI/Selling Yourself Nonverbally 235 to sell himself as the nation's leader F th '1 · iors, when compared with Carter's . or ose_reasons, I concluded that Ford's eye behav- Ford to project an Image of supen~rplayed an important ro1e.1n the first debate and helped t

F competence, trustworthiness and dy - j ord and Carter exhibited gestures that ct·f£ d - , nam1sm.

and kind. Many but not all of Ford' I ere noticeably, with regard to both number ·1 · - ' ' s gestures seemed calculated to c 1 that he was a powerful person His fr rea e the impression I

bled a subdued karate chop Ford co eq~:n~h~?d tgestures were so forceful that they resem- I nodding and shoulder inove~ent to a~ ine rs orceful hand gestures with frequent head ! ing verbally. In short Ford used illustr ~mphasis and feeling to the points thathe was mak- dynamic. , a or gestures purposefully to make him seem more

In contrast, Carter used few gesrures The esture . for the most part and took the form of d. g s he did use were Weak and tentatJ.ve,

' a aptor gestures Carter's gentle h d gested a lack of confidence and an ele t d 1 f · an gestures sug-lips, moved his hands in and out of h .va e eve! o anxiety. For example, Carter licked his

" is pockets and sometJ.mes put his h prayerful position. The aggregate eft . ' ands together in a make him appear ro be anxious. ecr was to depress Carter's perceived dynamism and

In my recommendations, I stressed that Carter sh l hand gestures to emphasize the points b th_· ou d use many, and more forceful, would have to eliminate the gestures th ~ ou w l~h he felt deeply. At the san1e time, he about his answers Ford's gestures ga ah~uggestd·ed. ~e was hesitant, uncertain, or tentative

· ve im an a 1tiona.r advantage 0 c 1 h eye behaviors were more important than e _ . ver arter, a t ough selves nonverbally. g stures in the candidates' efforts to sell u1em-

Posture ts very significant for individuals who w. h because it is known to be a potent source of inf or rs to be perceived as credible leaders. the Ford-Carter debate Ford made sk'Jlf I fm~tlon about another person's power. In

' i u use o the image building pot r " f types of postures. If you have viewed . d - en ial o certain Ford's charactenstlc Posture was that of :~a:~~~pe~i~ ~~e debate, perhaps you n.oticed that Ping the opposite sides of the podiun1 H f1 is feet and arms spread widely, gnp- questJ.on and increased the forward lea~ e usua y leaned forward as he began to answer a him to project an image of supenor po dunng the answer. Ford's widespread stance helped

wer; as he spoke the forward lean sense of confidence and immediacy· and h. f .

1 ' communicated a

responsive to the reporter's quest1o~s. Al~~u a~~ fr~~uent postural shifts made him seem ated, they were .synchronized with his g or s postures were somewhat exagger- that this was not a man who was apt to :~:tures :~.such~ manner as to suggest quite clearly tree. a out o is hehcopteror onto the family Chnstmas

Carter, in contrast, rarely if ever spread his ar _ . forward. In fact .his relative bodily ngidi ms e~pansi':'ely In front of him or leaned peared to be almost a prayerful p~se su ty, ~hen combined with hands clasped in what ap- try1ng to pro_Ject the im~ge of a dyn, a g_ges ed a passiv1sm that was not useful for a person

rmc leader and man of act L viewed as active rather than passive. ion. eaders are usually

In short, Ford exhibited many of th · . . in Chapter 4, and Carter exhibited a dis: positive rndrcators of perceived power identified to be indicators of powerlessness Mv re ess1ng number of nonverbal cues that are known tures and postures associated with pe~ce~~mme~datron to Carter was to accentuate the ges- and postures associated with powerlessnes~~s o power and to de-emphasize those gestures

I

Neither candidate used the image-molding potential of vocal cues ro good effect. Ford's voice lacked the orotund quality that would make it pleasing, and his tendency to give vocal emphasis to unimportant words, as opposed to thought units, hardly had the ef- fect of accentuating his intellectual capacity. At the same time, Ford's substantial volume helped him communicate a sense of emouonal intensity.

Carter's use of his voice was less tt1an desirable for at least three reasons. First, his speaking rate was much too fast. At a number of points in the debate, Carter's speaking rate \Vas in the range of 200 to 260 words per minute. A speaking rate of over 275 words per nunute makes comprehension difficult, particularly if the communicator is using a regional dialect. When speaking at 200 to 260 words per minute, Carter·had exceeded the range for conversational speech by around 100 words per 1n1nute. Such a rapid speaking rate also cre- ates the impression that a person is anxious.

Secondly, Carter exhibited a very narrow pitch and volume range and. dropped his voice at the end of sentences. Anything approaching inonotone speech makes the commu- nicator seem to be emotionally urunvolved, uninteresting, and nondynamic. The personality traits and personal qualities usually ascribed to a commun1caror who is vocally unexpres- sive are pnmarily negative.

Third. Carter paused frequently, filled a·number of his pauses with nonfluencres such as __ "ah_," and repeated certain words. By exhibiting those vocal phenomena, Carter rein- forced t11e impression that he lacked confidence. To be versuasive, the communicator must sound confidenr. We know that

fthel ideal voice is smooth, free pf hesitation, and clear; vossesses good tone and volume, and vanes in sveech rate. Public sveaking exverts and coaches agree that sveakers who control loudness, vitch, fluency, resonance, and rate of sveech are thought to be more active and dynamic, more versuasive. (Gray, 1982, pp. 85-86)

I recommended that Carter ta.Ice the necessary actions to develop a more confidenr speaking voice in the second presidential debate with Gerald Ford. To communicare greater emotJ.onal involvement and com1Uitn1ent to the positions he was taking, Carter had to use greater variation in pitch and volume. To become more conversational, he would have to slow· down his speaking rate. Finally, he would have to 1Uini1Uize nonfluencies because non- fluenc1es are usually perceived to be strong and reliable indicators of an elevated level of anxiety.

Although some of Carter's inedia advisors were concerned about the impact of his per- sonal appearance in the debates, I do not believe the candidates' personal appearances strongly affected the images they projected. Personal appearance is particularly important in shaping the first impression an individual makes. but both candidates were already well- .known by the electorate.

Carter was subsequently bnefed on the probable perceptual impact of specific kinds of commun1cat1ve behaviors before his second debate with Gerald Ford. Polls showed that Carter won the second debate, in the op1n1on of the Amen can electorate. However, a Gallup poll conducred for Newsweek magazine (Cooper, 1979) indicared that 50 percent were not sure. Those polled also felt that Carter was better informed t11an Ford and that Carter would be more honest and open with the public about his foreign policy. In short, Carter was

236

Judged to be more credible on the important dimensions of competence and trustworthi- ness. Ken Cooper (1979) concluded that "the NVC rnonverbal commun1cationl informa- tion these two <:andidates transmitted in the debates explains the results of the poll, and ultimately the choice Amencans made for President" (p. 185).

I certainly would not clarm that Carter's nonverbal commun1cation 1n the second debate with Ford was responsible for his victory in that debate. Dunng the second debate, however, Carter controlled his eye behavior and used gestures, postures, and vocal cues much rnore skillfully than he had done 1n the first debate-for the purpose of selling himself nonverbally. His media advisors apparently also felt that nonverbal factors played an important role in the second debate .. After Carter was eJ.ected, I got another call from a Rafshoon representauve. He generously offered to contribute all of the television videotapes and radio audiotapes of commercials use:d in tile pnmanes and the presidential campaign to me, and tl1roug11 me to the University of Georgia, as a gesture of appreCianon for my analysis of the role nonverbal factors played in affecting Jimmy Carter's Image in his debates with Ford.

Dunng the presidential can1paign of 1988, I was aslced by The Washington Post to an- alyze tile i1npact of then-Governor Michael D'fikakis's nonverbal cues on his personal credibilitv. Other analysts of Political communication also contributed to an article wnt- 1en by Lloyd Grove that was titled "Dukalds: If He Only Had.a Heart (His Video-Image Scorecard-Brains 10, Wannth 0)" (1988). I subsequently expanded that bnef analysis re- ported in the newspaper article for a convention paper in which I c01npared DUkakis and Bust not only with regard to how well they did on the important image din1ension of credi- bility, but a1so on the three other image dimensions of likability, interpersonal attractiveness, and dOllllnance. Part of that analysis is provided in Chapter 10 on Impression management.

My analysis of the firstDukakis-Bush debate (1988) led me to conclude that DuLcakis's "grearest strength.is his commun1canon of competence." As I have already no red, a number of studies indicate that people tend to key ln on eye behaviors as an indication of how well candidates know What they are talking abour. Duleakis's eye contact in the first presidential debate with George Bush was remarkable by a!mosi any standard. When asked a quesnon, he maintained eye contact with the questioner; Ile almost never looked down before Ile re- sponded; and whenever Bush was talking, he ma1ntarned eye contact with Bush.

Only Dukalds 's high blink rate and slightly accelerated speaking rate (up to 195 words a llllnute, or a bit beyond the conversational norm) suggested that he was nervous or laclcect confidence; these behaviors could have had a negative impact on the dynamism dimension of credibility. Bush, by contrast, seldon1 inainta1ned eye contact, looked down often before answenng a question, and occas1onally rolled his eyes upward, all probably indicators of discomfort. Finally, Dukakis had min1n1a1 response latency (the tJ.me rt take to begin roan- swer), whereas Bush's performance was marked by long pauses and false starts. The less time people take to respond to a question, the more competent they will be Perceived to be. Nonverbally, as well as verbally, Dukakis clearly communicated the impression that he had a decided edge rn competence over George Bush.

Trustworthiness was the credibility dimension with which Dukakis had a senous prob- 1e1n. It has afready been established that we tend to trust most those individuals who are open, straightforward, and emotionally disclosing. Governor Dukakis was called the "Ice Man" for areason--there was almost nothing ln his nonverbal communrcatJ.on (the Pnmary ineans of expressing emotion) to suggest that he had feelings. When you express a feeling,

Chapter 11 /Selling Yourself Nonverbally 237

. k you might be reJ- ected If vou do not c01mnun1cate any emotion, you avoid Y oun1nans - · . b· ted Theun-

d"ff e t type ofnsk-you in10-ht not e rrus · the risk offreJtecftionD, bkuat·1a~osuwr~1snt~at1 r::n~ of the things he did ;onverbally reinforced the fortunate ac or u - . H" was 1no- idea that he is an emot10nally undisc1os1ng man who lacks spontane1~v. is voice . notonous and with his mecl;anical hand gestures, he almost looked like a t~y so'.drer.

D k~is's bigo-est liability in tenns of trusrworthiness was probably his smile. When Duka~s smiled du;mg the first debaie with Bush, viewecs saw a Jot of teeth but no,cr~w ~; eet around the eves. Duleakis's srr1ile is a lower-face phenomenon; there _is rea.son o ?u ~e smcenty of a smile thm isn't reflected throughout the face. Because his smile was ·fr~~td in the lower part of his face, Dukakis often appeared to mask em?tions_ rather than exhi 1 - rng the felt happy smile that is associated with the emot1onallv disc1~~1ng personf ed"bil-

In short Dukakis was extraordinarily srrong on the competence unens1on o er l h~d a definite deficit in terms of trustworthiness. We have already seen that he

ny, but he G ·g Bush in that he dominated hi1n visually. However,

~a:k:~'~:~ ::~i:a;:n~::r de~~:, ~n two of. fue other image dimensi~is;;~~~i;~~ ~;~ interpersonal attractiveness-that the overall 1mpress1on made by Ge~':'e: l Dukakis

. 'd t·a1 debate was more favorable than the impression n1ade by ic ae . presi en 1 f 1996 A for the moment tllar Finally Jet us consider tile presidential campaign o . ssume R t D l 's

~:~~:~a~~:g:c,~~~~~ ~~:~:~;~~o.~~~a~:~~:::!~~z~;,~;J;2;1:'.~~~ie~~ defining features of Dole's nonv;~a~ ~~:~~xhibited by Dole that affect his credibility in identify thos.e.nonv:rb:~~~~~ ~ays eD~le'~ cmnpmgn inanager has asked you to answer the strongly positive ru:Hn "do Senator.Dole's eye behaviors, gestures, postures, and vocal cues following questton. ow ' - . f th mpact of

. dibTt ? Although you have been asked to ocus on e 1 affect his personal ere

1 _ 1 Y · . d"bT ou will also comment bneflv

Dole's nonverbal communication on hrs personal ere I 1 ttV, y , . r on - p . d t B ·n Clinton ·s nonverbal com1nun1cauon sty le by way of co1npa 1s . .

on ~~\:~1 po:itive side Senator Dote 11as nsen to one of tlle most orest1g10us tad~rsh: positions in tl~e United S~~te; af:: s:~~1:~:~ ~:~:n1:t;~~~~~:t~ ~~~:::;:~:: R:~~~l~a~ JOnty leader; or a numbet o ye ti olitic1an a Washington insider w110 is skilled at tile party. Dole is perceived as a prag1na c Pd al ~i,ng In fact some critics have labeled hi1n art of vote counting, comprorruse, and e m . ,

"The Great Equivocator" because of his propensity to co1npronuse. h . cter and

There 1 s reason to_ think that Dole lS cr:::epde~so~ ~1~~do:u::~;;e~~~b~t:~e

10 ~arge

brave detenmnation. His image as a cour~ after he was severely wounded in Italy dunng part to his military service and to tile fact at t to d·e Dole's wounds crushed his vertebrae World War II ~e was sent hon1e in a _bo~~h~a~m an~ hand virtually useless. Because he has and mangled !us nght aim, leaving his i:o -

1 · 1 is nght hand so that his

very lirruted use of his nght ann todayd~e. ~la~es:-~:~i~\~;tn~~;: ~Duffy & Gibbs, 1995). fingers will ~ot splay and he greets 11~i~:~i~~Ys D~le managed to ~inerge as a maJor figure In spne of his rather severe phvs1ca _ •

in national politics. . bl "th which Dole n1ust cope successfully Political insiders identify four nna?e pro e1ns w1 d n a culture that values

~no~:. ~~:~b~:;i~:::~~nca;~;,~fsn~t~t~s r:~~~~~h~~;~:c:si~:; ~ta time when the mood

238 Part 21 Develomng the Successful Commumcator

of the country ~avo~s the outsider, and the perception by the nght wing of the Republican party that Dole s nuddle-of-the-road pragmatism is much too distant from their own zeal- ous brand of conservatism. Because of his pragmatism and his willingness to compronuse on the issues, Dole-like President Clinton-has been criticized as a man without convic- tions who vacilitaites on the issues (Kilgore, 1995).

Dole and his advisors are particularly concerned with his image as a septuagenanan. They could not have been pleased when Time magazine (Duffy &.Gibbs, 1995), 1n an issue that featured Dole in its lead article, raised this ominous question next to his photograph on the front coven "Is Dole Too. Old for the Job?"

An emJy effort by Dole's advisors to cope with the age issue was not promising. Thev ~t-arted bY_ getting a photograph of Dole published in many leading newspapers that showed h~ walking _on a treadmill. Alas, Dole was incongruously attired in a formal, long~sleeved shirt along with black-and-white smped shorts that Joolced like they nugllt be his underwear rather than his running sJ1orts. The unintended and silent message that this posed photo- graph commuiucaited was,not helpful: Senator Dole is 1n fact too old and too old-fashioned to be president The further inference is surely that Dole is totally out of contact with yup- p1es and the younger generation.

Dole's image advisors tned to recover by issuing detailed results from a medical exam ttiat showed Dole to be in very good health for a 1nan of his age. They released a nine-page document on Dole's 72nd birthday that offered the most detailed and complete medical in- formation ever re I eased on a presidential ~didate. Dole himself tned to blunt the age issue by saving, "I'll put Strom Thunnond on the ticket for age balance." At the same rime, Dole probably recognizes that although couniries like Japan venerate the old the United States tends to celebrate youtti.

Th_e other part of Dole's image that is most problematic 1s his reputation for being abra- sive. His penchant for putting down political opponents with what has been seen as mean- spirited humor and a glowenng, dour demeanor has resulted in some persisting nicknames that suggest the nature of this part of Dole's iinage problein: "Nixon's Doberman p1nscher," "hatchet man," and "Nasty Bob." Dunng the 1988 presidential campaign, Dole delighted 1n referring to the ideas of Democratic candidate Michael Duka.Ids as "Du-cockeyed." I-Iis biting humor 1s also reflected in tl1e way he has greeted female acquaintances on the srreets of his hometown of RusselL Nebraska: "So vou JUSt visited the beauty parlor today, eh? Ob- viously 1t was closed" (Harzog, 1995).

The nonvertial commun1cauve behaviors that Senaror Dole and President Clinton ex- hibit dunng the presidential campaign of 1996 will undoubtedly play a cenrralrole 1n min- 1miz1ng or exacerbating the image problems they brought to the campaign. Surely, the dominant features of their nonverbal communication styles will strongly affect their per- sonal credibility. The following analysis is based on close observation of videotapes of Sen- ator Robert Dole's appearances on ABC's Nightline on June 29 and on November 29, 1994, and on CBS's Face the Nation on October?, 1995.

Dole's eye behaviors should help ro enhance perceptions that he 1s a competent person. He does an exce!ilent JOb sustaining eye contact while both listening and speaking. In addi- tl.on, he rarely pauses and looks down before responding to a question.

In other respects, however, Dole's eye behaviors are a disaster. The most outstandingly negauve feature of his eye behaviors is a blink rate so high as almost to defy belief. In three

T i Chapter 11 I Selling Yourself Nonverbally 239

recent television appearances Dole's blink rate ranged from 150 to 160 blinks per minute. In addition. some of his eye blinks come with such machine-gun rapidity that they suggesr that Dote is about to have some rype of seizure. This blink rate is apt to strongly depress his ratings on the dynamism dimension of personal credibility. Dynanusm, as reflected bv a more midrange blink rate, tends 10 correlate highly with the perception that an individual is confident As the blink rate increases, however, perceived confidence rends to decrease. As you will recall, one:. of the nonverbal factors Judged to have the most negative impact on Jim- my Carter's confidence level in his debate with Gerald Ford was his high blink rate. Without a doubt, Dole's bllllk rate is much faster than Carter's.

In his rwo appeara,nces on Nightline, Dole exhibited almost no tendency to be shifty eyed. Iri his appearance on Face the Nation, however, Dole was extremely shifty eved; he has also been observed to be shifty eved in other public appearances. Dunng his appearance on Face the Nation, Do1e·s eye-shift rate ranged from 130 to 156 shifts a minute. With an accelerated eye-shift rare such·as this, Dole's eyes appear to be darting from side to side, giving the effect that they are almost dancing. Harzog (1995), who observed Dole's video- taped appearance at tile 1988 Republican convention, also concluded that Dole is highly shifty eyed. She noted that Dole's shifty-eyed behavior detracts fro1n perceptions of trust- worthiness, and hence, from perceptions of credibility. If Dole's eyes exhibit a high degree of shiftiness dunng tile n1tense pressure he will experience during the 1996 presidential campaign, the shifting eyes will surely make observers perceive hin1 much more negauve1y on tile trustworthiness din1ension of credibility. Our sociery has a strong eve behavior ste- reotype that specifies that shifty-eyed people are unrrusrworthy.

In terms of gestures and posture, Dole is strikingly impassive, unexpressive, and unas- sertive. A good part of his problem mav be attributed to his senous war InJunes. In the three televised appearances studied, the cameras were sufficienuv close up that only Senator Dole's face and shoulders and about s1x inches of his upper torso were visible. Perhaps tl1ere 1s an unwritten agreement among television people tllat Dole's cnppled nght arm and hand will rarely be shown on the atr. In one sense, this may be an advantage to Dole because it tends to diveit attention from his physical disability. On the other hai1d, Dole loses the great potential to be expressive and assertive that hand gestures would give him.

If presidential candidate Michael Dukakis was called the "Ice Man" because he com- municated so little about his emotions, Senator Dole nught be called the "Immobile Man" because of his lack of bodily movement. Dole rs unusually stiff on television. Because of. the relatively tight close-up.s, the onlv bodily move1nent that Dole 1s observed to exhibit with some degree of frequency is a slight but perceptible head nod as if to affinn the point he is making. Very rarely Dole's left hand will appear bnefly on screen making a gesture of limited intensity. Thus. Dole's absence of gestures enhance the perception tl1at he lacks dy- namism. DynamiSm, or assertiveness, in turn is viewed as essential to projecting the visual image of a leader. Dole uses few gestures and the occasional gesture he does use is not par- ticularly firm.

Posture 1s, of course, extren1ely important 1n shaping Judgments of dynamism, partic- ularly the power dimension. Harzog (1995) argued that Dole's upnght posture helps him "exude a great deal of presence." The salient po1n1, however, 1s that Dole's posture appears to be fixed, rigid, and unchanging. Such immobility tends to define one as tacking ctyna- 1msm. Indeed, communicators who are perceived as dynamic assume an open and relaxed

I~

,, ,,

240 Part 21 Developing the Successful Communicator

posture, use postural shifts ro commun1cate interest in what they are saying or 1n ttlose with whom they are co1n1nun1catlng, and lean forward to emphasize a point they are making. Senator Dole, the Immobile Man, does none of these things.

Finally, what about Senator Dole's vocal cues? He speaks with a deep, orotund voice, at a conversational rate (a slightly elevated 195 words per minute), and he pauses effectively to give emphasis ro the points he is making. In addition, he sometimes emphasizes his points by slightJy increasing his speaking rate or volume. These factors should enhance Judgments made of Dole on the competence dirnens1on of credibility.

The fact tha.t Dole's "gravelly" voice sometimes sounds flat; nasal, and harsh means that he is apt to tle perceived as a somewhat unpleasant individual. Vocally, Dole's greatest deficiency is that he speaks with a very limned pitch range. His near monotone delivery usually reinforces the impression that he is unexciting and surely uninteresting. -

Finally, Dole is gene.rally fluent but when under pressure he has a tendency 10 become dysfluei1t. \Vhen Forrest Sawyer told Dole on Nightline that 70 percent of those polled dis- approve of what the Republicans are doing on health care, Dole because noticeably dysflu- enr. He replied after a pause, /'Well, it's, ah, it's Lpausej a different poll than I ha~e seen." Under the extren1e pressure he v.rill experience dunng the presidential campaign, therefore, Dole exhibits a predisposition that may result in high dysfluency. High dysfluency, 1n turn, can negatively a:ffect the way one is percei~d on both the competence and trustworthiness ditnens1ons of credibility.

The feature~; of Senator Dole's nonverbal communication style Jnst identified will in all probability re.suit in him bemg perceived by the public and cancatured by the media as a would-be leader sorely Jacking u1 dynam1s1n. His stiff and unexpress1ve public demeanor is not likely 10 be useful as he tnes to defuse the age issue. In addition, because of his non- verbal cues Senator Dole is apt to be perceived as a person lacking 1n likability. He may certainly be perceived as dour, forbidding, and unapproachable. If so, this part of his image may be attribute(1 to the fact that he alinost never smiles in public, has extreinely heavy and bushy eyebrows that make his dour expressions even more forbidding if not threatemng, has deep lines permanently etched across his forel1ead, and perhaps most importantly, lacks bodily 1nove1nents. Thus, he fails 10 display many of the nonverbal behaviors that correlate strongly with positive perceptions that a person is likable.

If Senator Dole might Justifiably be called the Immobile Man, President Clinton nught be called the "Friendly Man." In this instance the striking contrast in the images that the public may clairrL for each candidate may not of course be tl1e decisive factor that detemnnes the outcome of the presidential race. First, victory or defeat may well pnmarily result from situational factors that neither presidential candidate can control, such as the state of the economy, the degree of conflict at the 1ntemat1onal level, and so forth. Then too the objec- tive analyst will recognize that "candidate" Bill Clinton must also confront senous image problems. Like Dole he has been criticized ,as being a vacillator who waffles on the issues when under pressure. His ultraconservative opponents have pilloned him 1n the media by clanning almost unbelievably negative images for him, such as identifying Clinton as a~ immoral philanderer who cheats on his wife, a draft dodger. a liar, someone with direct links to the underworld, one who panders to public opinion, and so on.

You are working as an image analyst for Senator Dole so you must tal<e a realistic look at the commun1cat1ve assets President Clinton bnngs to the 1996 presidential campaign in

r I

Chapter JI/Selling Yourself Nonverbally 241

tenns of his nonverbal communication style. First, you recognize that Clinton has revolu- tionized campaigning by using interactive media for the first time. He relishes tl1e opportu- nity to appear live before a s1nall audience in a television studio and interact with members of the audience in an informal, unrehearsed manner without using nores. Second, you rec- ognize that Clinton is strong precisely where Dole is weak-lle uses nonverbal communi- cation skillfully to mal<e hiinself appeai· to be a highly likable, sincere, and dynamic person.

As Senat~r Dole's image analyst, you would be well advised to study a videotape of Clinton's appearance on MTV's "Music Television-Choose or Lose." Clinton appeared live on this program dunng the 1992 presidential campaign and interacted with a small au-

dience in the television studio. Clinton is a confident and skilled communicator. Unlike Senator Dole, he does not ex-

hibit highly distracting nonverbal behaviors that suggest that 11e lacks confidence. Whereas Dole exhibits an almost unbelievably high blinlc rate as well as shifty eves, Clinton sustains direct eve contact with his audience. Clinton blintcs a low two to three times a minute, for

example. In contrast to Senator Dole, the Immobile Man, President Clinton uses bodily n1ove-

menis forcefullv and naturally to emphasize the most important points he ts making. Sig- nificantly, his bodily .inovements are synchronized with vocal cues such as the pause for effect and an increase 1n the rate or volume of his voice for einphas1s. Dunng his appearance on MTV. Clinton said, "We have quadrupled the national debt in 12 years." While making this stat~ment, Clinton spread his arms wide in an expansive gesture as if to emphasize how fast the national debt has increased. In addition, when Clinton wants to einphasize a point or focus the audience's attention, he holds up a finger.

In contrast to Senator Dole, Clinton's posture is open and relaxed. Moreover, Clinton looks like he 1s enJoving himself while interacting with an audience. If you had to choose a single word to charactenze Clinton's .nonverbal communication style, it would probably be "pleasant." In contrast, Senator Dole often looks stern, serious, and unapproachable dur- ing his appearances in public. Clinron's great edge in pleasanmess and likability 1nay cer- tainly be traced to the fact that lle seems 10 minimize the distance between himself and those with-whom he inreracts, and he does so with a style tl1at accentuates informality and close personal contact. Dole in contrast appears to cultivate a stiff informality that makes 1t diffi- cult for people to get close to hirn at least in a figurative sense.

In short, Senator Dole may bnng a number of political assets to the 1996 presidential campaign that President Clinton can nor match. In terms of building his personal credibility, however, Dole's nonverbal com1nun1cation style is not one of those advanrages.

The Selling of Corporate Sale Representatives

Nonverbal factors qune clearly do Play a central role in deternun1ng how successfully presi- dential candidates and others sell themselves nonverbally. Although mosr of you are nor likely to be a presidential candidate, you may someday be in a situation 1n which the selling of your abilities 1s imporrant. Most of us attach importance to success in the job interview, where the ability to sell oneself is pitted against the abilities of compenng JOb applicanrs.

Modem corporations recognize that you must sell yourself to potential custoiners be- fore they will buy from you. The sales rrain1ng manual of one corporation, Burst Inc., iden-

242 Part 21 Developing the Successful Communicator

tifies "Sell Yourself First" as a pnnciple of overriding importance in saies training. Sales trainees are rem.inded to sell themselves first, even though some "people think it's an old worn-out cliche, but it's not worn out. It's absolutely essential for success rn selling or any other occupation."

My own expenence in presenting sales and communication programs to corporate sales repr.esentatives has convinced me that nonverbal factors are vnally important 1n per- sonal ·selling. The case of Omar Johnson helped to convince me. Omar is a sales represen- tative for a pharmaceutical con1pany. He has been reasonably successful because he works hard and has good product knowledge. He does not make a good first impression, however, pnmarilv because he stutters, fills his frequent pauses with nonfluencies, and is vocally unexpress1ve.

Recently, a sales manager received a telephone call fro1n a salesman who wanted to discuss an upcoi:n1ng visit he was to make with a sales prospect. After talking to the sales- man for five nunutes, the sales manager realized he did not know to whom he was talking so he asked, "Who is' this?" The caller replied in a carefully modulared voice, which wa~ free of stutters or nonfluenc1es, "Why this is Omar Johnson. Don't you know who I mn? I have worked f~r. you for 10 ye<U"s." The sales manager was amazed because Omar projecred such a totally different image, by vocal means, that he was unrecognizable. "What have you done, Omar?" said the sales manager. "You have changed dramatically. You now seem to be confident and forc~ful." Omar explained, it "is the sales and commun1catJ.on program that I recently attended. I saw myself on the SIX-foot television screen for the first time and I listened to iny:;elf. I looked and sounded like a fool. Since then, I've practiced my ~ales presentation on a tape recorder, and I'm·a new man." -

The sales rnanager subsequently accon1pan1ed Omar when he made a sales presenta- uon to a prospe7t.- Omar used his newly acquired communication skills to proJect an unage of a much more competent, trustworthy, and dynamic salesperson. He persuaded the pros- pect to use a large quantity of the product that he was selling. Omar's sales manager was so nnpressed tllat he recommended that all of his company·s salespeople be required to take a sales and communication training program. The company is currently implementing the sales manager's recommendahon._The training program einphas1zes the central role of non- verbal cues in developing the credibility of the corporate sales representative.

I have had the opportunity to observe and analyze the persuasive efforts of individuals who were selling products thar ranged from. wine to electrical appiiances to fertilizer. Al- though product salespeople and politicians must both sell the1nselves first, the selling situ- ations they encounter are different in important respects. Politicians who attempt to sell themselves on television via a persuasive speech have control over many situauonal van- ables. Their captive audiences have no opportunity to provide immediate feedback, there- fore the politician need not make any on-the-spot adjustments in a preplanned message. The well-known politician need not be concerned about exercising the listening skills associated with effecuve communicative interaction, because no direct interaction with another indi- vidual occurs.

But corporate sales representatives engage in interpersonal rather than public commmu- catlon. Because they interact directly with prospective customers, they cannot adhere ngidly to a preplanned rext. {(hey frequently encounter sales resistance that is both unanticipated and unwelcome or questions that directly challenge their credibility. To be successful, they

Chapter 11/Selling Yourself Nonverbally 243

must be able to adjust to the continually changing demands of distincnve kinds of coinmu- nicative situations over which they can exercise only partial conrrol.

Because of the distinctive Situational demands of successful product selling, the devel- opment and maintenance of a corporate salesperson's personal credibility are particular Challenges. To meet the constant threats to their credibility, Jess successful salespeople of- ten commun1caie in ways that are either inappropriately aggressive or unassertive. The ag- gressive salesperson, for example, seems IO take pride in cultivating an image of iireverence. toughness, and insensitivity that limits sales.

The development of a salesperson's credibility places a premium on the ability to com- municate 1n an assertive, as opposed to an unassertive or aggressive, manner. Judgments of a salesperson's level of assertiveness are strongly affected by the nature of his or l1er visual and vocal communication.

The No.nverbal Unassertive Salesperson Many corporate sales representatives are so unassertive visually and vocally that they dam- age their credibility. Visually unassettive salespeople rarely look at the prospect dunng the greeting or the close of a sale, and they fail to sustain eye contact dunng the sales presen- tation. They tend to reveal therr anxiety by means of hand-to-face gestures and other exrra- neous movements, and thev use few gestures to emphasize the selling points they do make. Therr ngid bodily posture makes them seein unresponsive to what the customer is saying. Nonverbally unassertive sates reoresentativesfrequentty resoond in inapproortate nonver- bal ways when they encounrer sales resistance or receive negauve _feedback from the cus- tomer. When encountenng sales resistance, many sale~people become defensive; they cross their anns over thelf chest, smile nervously, and laugh ar inappropriate times.

The nonverbally unassertive salesperson usually does not sound convincing. I was dis- mayed when I heard one salesman ask a client, "Can I send out five cases of our product, then?" in such a timid and unassertive tone of voice as to almost assure noncompliance. If you do not sound convinced thaI you are selling a product with many tangible benefits, how can you expect the sales prospec,t to be convinced?

Vocally unassertive salespeople often try IO let their product sell itself. They tend to read to the prospective custo1nerfrom co1npany literature in an unexpress1ve voice that sug- gests a lack of enthusiasm about the product. Therr speaking rate is too fast to allow pur- poseful pauses JUSt before they malce their most important selling points. Although they may not speak in a monotone. their pitch and volume ranges are narrow. Thell' anx1etv is reflected not only in an excessive speaking rate but also in the nonfluenc1es they utter.

I made the following recornmendattons to one vocally unassertive salesperson, after listening to his sales presentation:

Avoid dropping the oztch of your voice at the end of sentences, since this practice makes you seem less enthusiastic about the oroduct _you are selling~and indeci- sive. Yoitr fllst speaking rate and many filled oauses will have the effect of eroding your perc~zved competence. When you asked the customer whether you could "send. out five cases ·of our product?" you said it with a lack of conviction that might make it more likely that the ciisromer would hesitate, or say no. Be sure to enunciate clearly and speak with vocal conviction. You 1nust sound convinced thar

_244 -----'=.:::O..::~~":___ ____ T-Part 2/Devetopmg t/ie Successful Communicator I

Chapter 11 I Selling Yourself Nonverbally 245

you are sellin~ a superior product. Work for greater variation in fJltch, rate, and volume. Practice your sales vresenrat1on with a tape recorder, lll order to·deveto a persuasive voice. P

The Nonverbally Aggressive Salesperson

Nonverbal.ly aggressive salespeople have a different problem that threatens thelr perceived rrustworth1ness. They act and sound aggressive. Their apparent confidence borders

00 at-

ro.gance. Their v1sua1 and vocal image 1s such that customers can hardly avoid the feelin that they are being coerced rather than persuaded. g

The agg~essive salesperson-frequently fixes the prospect with an unremitting stare as- sumes a bel!1gerent postur~, and shakes a finger in the prospect's face 1n order to em~ha­ s1ze a selling point. Exaggerared gestures and postures are often combined w"th manipulative questions and judgmental statemenrs, such as· "Why ask me?"- "D 't

1

agree?"- "Isn't th t h '" d" h . . , on you · , a ng t. _;an T at's a false economy, son." Unassertive salespeople

:ecome defensive When they encounter sales resistance, but the aggresstve satesverson of- en becomes condescending. The stare becomes more pronounced, the tone of voice be-

c01nes sarcastic, and volume becomes excessive. Nonverbal condescension is reinforced

CARTOON 11.1

IT WOULt> ~ _A ~/El Ml'S"lAkf:O NO'f' io J;uY Ou~ f>ROt:>LICT ! "

by starements such as, "It would be a senous mistake not to use our product" or "Did you really buy that product?"

In thelf zeai to sell their product, aggressive salespeople appear to be insensitive to t11e needs and feelings of the prospect. They not only dominate the prospect visually, vocally, and verbally, but they are poor listeners. Unknowingly, they parody the hard-sell image of the used-car salesperson. who is commonly believed to have a credibility problem of gigan- tic proportions.

After evaluanng t11e unsuccessful sates presentanon of one aggressive salesman, I made the following recommendations to him:

Jn your sales vresentation, you were so forceful that you ran the risk of being per- ceived as aggressive. Avoid putting the cusromer down, sounding argumenrative when the customer raises objections, and pointing and shaking your finger at him. Nore that at times your unremitting eye contact, your srrident and condescending tone of voice, ·and your e1nottonally loaded gestures made-you seem aggressive and less emvathic than you actually are. The ring of conviction in your voice can be a real selling asset, but do not get carried away so that you sound like Mr. Hard- sell. Given your ability to esrablish rapport with the customer, I am not sure why you lost this advantage by beconung aggressive. Rather than drawing the custom- er out and letting him do the talking, it seemed that you w~re determined to control the conversation from your.frame of reference. Jn short, seek to be nonverbally as- sertive rather than aggressive.

Developing Personal Credibility

The foregoing examples were designed to illustrate the impact of nonverbal cues on credi- bility. A careful reading of the previous section s11ould give you a rather good idea of what you should and should not do if you wish to sell yourself nonverbally. Nonetlleless, you Inlght find it helpful to have a specific set of guidelines to use for develop1ng your own cred- ibility. Figure 11.1 presents such a set of guidelines. The guidelines focus on the four classes of nonverbal cues that are known to have the strongest potential for affecting per- sonal credibility, Study the guidelines carefully, for they represent the nonverbal profile of the credible communicator.

You will recognize that the potentially powerful impact of nonverbal cues on perceived credibility is not confined to presidential candidates and corporate salespeople. The impact of individuals' communicative behaviors/cues has been proved to be greater than the impact of therr verbal communication rn many different interpersonal contexts. Significantly, the impact of nonverbal conununication is most pronounced on the most important dimension of credibility, competence (Barak, Patkin, & Dell, 1982). You also should note that the im- pact of a person's nonverbal commun1cat1ve behaviors/cues on perceived competence is gr~ater dunng the early part of inreraction with another person (Exline, 1985).

Eye behaviors are treated first because they play a central role in the development of personal credibility. We spend 1nuch more ume mon1tonng the eve region of persons with whom we interact than any other Part of thelf body; therefore. eve behaviors strongly affect Judgments of credibility.

246 Part 21 Devetomng the Successful Communicator

FIGURE 11.1 G "d I" ui e mes for Developing Your Nonverbal Credibility

Eye Behavwr.

Eye behaviors represem particularly im mrtan vi duals' credibility. A well-deve10P(!ct c~JtUra!t scues that are used to make _]Ud~:nents abom mdi- eye behav1prs that will raise and low · wreotype for Amencans specifies the kinds of Positive Eye Beha . S er a commumcaror·s credibility.

vwrs. usramecl eve conracr while talki 1 t while others talk to you; and the mamten f d' ng

0 0 hers; susunned eye contacr

mdividual(s) with whom vou are com ance 0 irect but not cont:muous eye contact with the N, · mumcatmg.

egauve Eye s~~havwrs: Looking down before res on din . . . . . looking away from the person with h P g to a question, exh1b1tlng shiftv eves·

w om vou are commumcatmg· k ep · ' casr; excessive blinking; and eve-flutter. ' e mg your eyes aown-

Gestures

Positive Gestures: Gestures should be' used to add tures should appear spomaneous, unrehearsed and e;:i~~:~.s to the points you are making; ges- whether you Wiflh to continue talkin or wish' . '.gestures-should be used to signal elbows should be kept away from th~ bod . another md1vidua1 to begm talking; hands and mtens1tv ot· your feelings aiid emotlons. Y, and geslures should be used to commumcate the

Negative Gesrures: Gestures that sugcrest a comi n nervous-should be avoided Hand-t f . nu icator Jacks confidence, is defensive, or 1s .. b · o- ace gestures throat-clearmg fidget! t

mg, v1s1 le perspiratJ.on on face or body 1. _1. ki ' ' ng, uggmg ar Cloth-head movementi;, our-of-contexr smilin~ ~~ct 1~. ng, h~nct-wnngmg, finger-tapping, extraneous should be avoid(:d, as thev are apt to u ~ gumacm"', and weak and tentatl ve gestures

· n ennme a commumcatocs credibilitv.

Postures

Posture is parucuJarly unportant m commumcatJ.n an md" . , s1ve the commumcator is; and how strono-J a g ividual S status or P_ower; how respon- port with interactmn partners. 0 Y commurucator desires to estabhsh a warm rap-

Positive Postures: Commumcators who wish to b expans1ve1v m front of them will ass e perceived as powerful will spread theu arms

R ' ume an open and relaxed postu e d .11 lk

dentlv. espons1 veness 1s commumcated b f _ r , an WI wa confi- rucatmg. Rapport is established in part b ly reau.ern and forceful postural shifts while commu- you begm to answer a question. y eanmg torward and smiling (when appropnatel as

Negauve Postures: Commurucators should avoid constnc timid or 1ack; assi•rtiveness Bodily . "d· ted postures that suggest that thev are

- · ng1 1ty, crossed arms and legs d 1 the body, and overall bodily rensmn are apt to 1 • anns an egs kepr c1ose to mpa1r a commumcator's credibility

Voice ·

Commurucators' vocal cues frequently play a maior role 1 h sonalitv characcenstJcs commumcators are presuffied t n s amng therr credibilitv. The per- of therr voices. Vocal qualities shape impressions abou~ ha~~b~~ often determmed by the sound Positive Vocal Cues: A'commurucator sh uld f ere 1 i ity, status, and power. recognizing that a moderately fast rate w·~r ~uIVe or a conversational speaking stvle while tlon in pitch, rate, and volume is partlcuJ~rl en ance perceived competence. Appropnace vana- comperent, and dvnam1c person Monoto e Ydl~portam m pro1ecting the image ot a confident, been found to be important for 1~dividua:~ w:0

1':;i~ ~hould be avoided. Sufficient volume has Neganve Vocal Cues: Commurucators should avoids ~ b~ perceived as competent and dynamic. sound flat, tense, or nasal. Nasality is t P a ng m such a way that therr voices sh~uld also avoid speaking at an exce:s~:; ~~~~~~ undes!fable vocal Qualitv. Commurucators which suggest lack of confidence and sometimes a l~~~ulff not use frequent, lengthy pauses, enc1es have been shown to have a markedly negative im o competen~~· .Th·e"foll~;"mg nonflu- words, 1men1.1ptwns or pauses m mid ''" ,

0 _ pacr on credib1htv. ahs, repeatmg

· h - r'"' ce, omitting parts of words a d tt who WIS to enhance their credibility h ld . ' n Stu enng. Persons s ou srnve to ehmmate the use of such nonfluenc1es.

1 \

Chapter Ji/Selling Yourself Nonverbally 247

Chapter 3 discussed in detail some of the reasons our eye behaviors play such a central role 1n developing or damaging our personal credibility. Perhaps t11e most important reason is that our eye behaviors directly reflect the amount of self-confidence we are perceived to have. We know that communicators who exhibit behavioral "tension-leakage" cues in the form of nonfluenc1es, shifty eyes, and lip mo1sten1ng will be Judged to be Jess competent than those who d.o not (_Exline, 1985). Jurich and Jurich (1974) found that failure to sustain eye contact correlated more highly with traditional measures of a communicator's level of anxiety than anv other type of nonverbal cue. In short, failure to sustain eye contact is the most damaging thing you can do nonverbally if you are particularly concerned about being

perceived as confident. Eye bel1av1ors are important determinants of credibility (Beebe, 1974; Burgoon,

Colcer, & Coker, 1986; Burgoon, Manusov, Mineo, & Hale, 1985; Burgoon & Saine, 1978; Edinger & Patterson, 1983; Harper, Wiens, & Matarazzo, 1978; Hemsley & Doob, 1978; Kleinke, 1975). Tuey are important because we are simply not believable unless we exhibit certain types of eye behaviors (Webbink, 1986). Figure 11.1 specifies which eye behaviors should and should not be exhibited in developing personal credibility. As you study Figure 11.l recall Jimmy Carter·s eye behaviors 1n his first debate with Gerald Ford and how they affected his credibility. Think also of the visually unassertive and aggressive salespeople who damaged their credibility by exhibiting too few positive eye behaviors and too 1nany negative eye behaviors. Do you have any dOUbt that your own eye behaviors have a maJor

impact on your credibility? Gestures and postm·es can also exert a strong impact on our credibility. Before consid-

erillg Figure 11.2, you may want to return to Chapter 4. Think about the ldnds of nonverbal cues tl1at communicate liking versus disliking, assertiveness versus nonassertiveness, and power versus powerlessness. You will recognize that u1e ctevelopinent of your personal credibility depends to a considerable degree on how likable, assertive, and powerful others perceive you to be. As you become actively engaged in developing your own credibility by nonverbal nieans, you must seek to eliminate the gestures and postures that have the poten- tial to negatively affect your perceived competence, trustworthiness, and dynam1sn1.

Finally, vocal cues are an important nonverbal determ1naniof credibility. As I indicated in Chapter 8, the sound of one·s voice strongly affects the personality traits and personal qualities that person is presumed to have. Scherer, London, and Wolf (1973) e1nphas1zed that the "confident voice" exhibits considerable vanatJ.on 1n pnch and volun1e, has high en- ergy, and uses pauses of short duration infrequentlv. Communicators who use the "confi- dent voice" are perceived as more competent, forceful, active, and enthus1ast1c than those who use the "doubtful voice." The development of personal credibility requires the devel-

opment of a confident voice. The "doubtful voice," which suggests a low level of self-confidence and a high level

of anxiety, must be eli1n1nated (Cooper, 1979; Erickson. Lind, Johnson, & Barr, 1978; Miller, Beaber, & Valone, 1976). Speech errors or nonfluenc1es in the form of stuttenng, tongue slips, incoherent sounds, sentence changes, 1ncomplettons, and pauses filled with "ah," repetitions, and phrases such as "you know," are srrong and reliable indicators of

anx1etv. The individual who pauses and stutters before answenng a questJ.on will probably

be seen as less competent The individual who pauses at length and uses 1nany sentence

248 Part 2/Devetoptng l'he Successful Commu"• ,,,.cator

FIGURE 11.2 Nonverbal Cue Evaluation

Communicator Pl ------------ Evaluator

ease momtor the communicator's ~:------------ a positi d nonverbat cues very carefi u t

vean negat1ve1mpactoncredib'l't Th u Y odetermmewhichcueshad ro m-~~ tile adjustments m Persuasive cor~~ e communrcators Should use these evaiuat1ons cred1b1hty. urucatron that are necessarv to develop personal

Du<.ing the ~:ales presentation did tl • le salesperson:

Eye Behaviors

(_+)I. Sustain eye comact with customer?

( +)2. Look directly at the customer?

(-)3. Lo6kctown or away before maki · . . - ngapomt?

(-)4. Exh1b1t shiftv eyes?

(-)5. Blink excessrv~Jy?

Gestures

(+JL (+)2.

(+)3,

(+)4.

(-)5,

(-)6.

(-)7,

(-)8.

(-)9,

Use hand and head gestures to c h mp asrze po1rits? Use gestures to signal a desue to continue talkin~? Kee~ hilllds and elbows out and awav from the bo~ ? Avoid usmg distractmg h"~ct to f -- Y ·

. . "'-" - - ace gestures? Exh1b1t anv weak ancftentatlve gestures? Clear throat?

Smile out of context? Fidget?

Put hand in pockets or on objects m the room?

Posture

(+)l. Assume an open and relaxed posture? -

( + )2. Use postural shifts to mdicate inrerest? C + )3. Lean forward while making a PO mt? { + )4. Face the customer directly? (-)5. Exhibit bodily tensmn?

(-)6. Appear ngid?

(-)7 · Commumcate with crossed arms and/or legs?

Vocal Cues

(+)L Use a conversational speaking style?

( + )2. Emphasize Important pomts with Change m Pitch and volume? (+)3. Communicate with sufficient volume? ·

(+) 4. Speak at ~:n appropnate rate? (-)5. Speak with a limited pitch rate?

(-)6. Sound flat, tense, or nasal?

(-)7. Pause at le11gth before answenng questions?

Yes No

Chapter JI/Selling YoursdfNonverbally 249

FIGURE 11.2 (Continued)

(-)8. Use nonfluenc1es such as "ah" and word repetitions? (-)9. Interrupt the cuswmer?

Write an evaluauon of the persuasive commumcat10n. Begm by rev1ewmg the assessments you have made on page L Then identify each of the communtcative cues that you felt had a positive or negative impact on credibility. Be sure to identify pomts not covered on the evaluation sheet

Desirable As peers of Commumcauon:

Undesirable Aspects of Commurncation:

Suggest10ns for Improvement:

fragments 1n trying to answer a question will probably be seen as untrustworthy; because such vocal cues are frequently associated with evasiveness. Finally, the individual who ex- hibits many nonfluenc1es will probably be seen as less than dynamic. Nonfluenc1es corre- late highlv with the perceived anxiety level of a nonfluent communicator (J Urich & Jurich, 1974).

Communicators' credibility can also be affected by whether they speak with an accent or dialect and by what kind of accent or dialect t11ey exhibit. Regional accents have been rated in terms of therr credibility; 1n general, the closer you come to speaking a standard midwesten1 dialect, the more competent you will be Judged to be. Although individuals who speak a regional accent may judge you to be more trustworthy if your own accent sounds like theirs, thev will see vou as less competent if that accent gets moderate to low marks on the competence dimension of credibility (Giles & Street, 1985).

Senator Ted Kennedy's suikingly nonfluent responses to Roger Mudd's quesnons il- lustrate drrunattcally the powerfully negative impact that nonfluenc1es can have on a per- son's credibility. What did Kennedy say when Roger Mudd asked him if he thought that anybody would ever really believe his explanahon of Chappaquiddick? Kennedv replied:

Well there's the, the problem is, is from that night uh, !found, the, the the, uh, con- duct of behavior almost beyond belief myself. I mean that's wh.Y it's been uh (pause) uh, but I think that tha(s that's the way it was. That that's, that happens

•

250 Part 21 Dev.~lopmg the Successful Communicator

to be the way it was. Now, uh, /find as I've stated it, that I've found that the con- duct that uh. in that evening and in, in the uh, as a result of the mwact of the ac- cident and the, the sense of loss, the sense of tragedy and the, the whole set of c1rc, cucumstances the uh, that the uh, behavior was inexplicable. So !find that those, uh, those types of" questions as they apply to that are quest1ons of my own, uh, could as well ut uh, that, that happens to be the way u was. (CBS Television, 1979)

Figure 11. ·1 spells out in detail what vou should and should not do if you are to use the full potential of your voice to develop your own credibility. As we have seen, the cultivation of the persuasive voice is a ma1or responsibility of individuals who wish to develop their personal credibility.

Monitoring the Communicator's Nonverbal Cues

In order to make full use of the potential of nonverbal cues in developing their personal credibility, individuals must be able to monitor tile nonverbal cues they exhibit in specific persuasive s1tuat16ns. Figure 1L2 should be used to make a record of the nonverbal cues you actually do exhibit.

The: form provided in Figure 11.2 n1ay be used to make a record of the nonverbal cues you exhibit 1n either a real or a s1mu1ated s1tuat1on. You illlght try to sell a product to a po- tential customer 1n a real s1tuat1on where other individuals can unobtrusively observe your persuasive effort, or you could make a sales presentation 1n a role-playing situation. In ei- ther case, it is easy enough to ask a third party to make a record of your nonverbal cues. Perhaps you could have tile session videotaped. In that case, either you or another person could record your visual and auditory cues by placing check marks rn tile appropnate blanks while the videotape was being replayed.

StuO'.ents and trainees who have used the mon1tonng and evaluation fonn provided in Figure 11.2 have found it to be valuable. The completed form provides a detailed profile of tile nonv1~rbal cues you actually have exhibited in a persuasive situation. The guidelines in Figure 11 . .1 identify tl1e profile of nonVerbal cues you should exhibit in order to be most credible. By companng your actual profile with the desired profile, you should have a clear idea of the modifications you will have to n1ake in your nonverbal commun1catlon if you wish to sell yourself more effecuvely.

Summary

Selling yourself is essential for successful persuasive co1nmunicatton. Selling yourself suc- cessfully requll'es the development of your personal credibility. Your credibility, 1n turn, is defined by how comperent, trustworthy, and dynamic others judge you to be. Co1npetence and trustworthiness are the most important dimensions of credibility; competence has re- peatedly been found to be more important than trustworthiness.

Tradi!iona! treatments of credibility have been based on the assumpuon that our per- ceived cornpetence, trustworthiness. and dynamism are controlled almost exclusively by tile words we utter. This chapter provides 2nformat1on that challenges that assumption. In

Chapter 111 Selling Your.ff{{ Nonverbally 251

fact, we now Jcnow that no·nverbal cues have the potential to exe1t a controlling influence on

our personal credibility, In many in~tance~ andidates and corporate sales representatives The persuasive efforts of .Presrdentl c 'fi k" ds of nonverbal cues affect our . . ·n tr t how and why spec11c in

analvzed 1n this chapter t us a e cal cues are highlighted as the most credibility. Eye behaviors, gestures, postures, and vo

important determinants of credibility. _ ·ia· potential of nonverbal cues, care- im use of the rmage-bu1 Ing

In order to make maximt . de lines in Figure 11. t. The nonverbal profile pre- ful attention should be given to the gu~ s11ould and should not do to develop sented in the figure spells out in det'ad1l wnat Y~thu a svstematlc means of identifying the

"b"l' p· 11 2 prov1 es you w1 personal cred1 1 Ity. igure · . it Bv carefully comparing tile nonverbal cues you nonverbal profile you actually do exh1b id .. b.t y~u can detennine what changes must exhibit with the nonver~al cues v~~:::r~on ~~~·~e~ to sell yourself successfully. be made 1n your nonve1 bal comm

References

ABC Television (1994, June 29). Nightline, interview

with Senator Robert Dole.

CBS Television (1976, Sep1ember 23), The first Ford

Caner presidential debate. CBS Television (1979,November4). CBS reports: Teddv. CBS Television (1986, November 19). President Ronald

Reagan press conference.

ABC Television (1994, November 29). Nightline, inter·

view with Senator Robert Dote. Baird, J.E., Jr. (1 977 ). Some nonverbal elements of

1eadership emergenct<. Southern Speech Commu-

nication Journal, 42. 352-361. Barak, A., Patkin, J., & Dell, D. M. (1982). Effects of

certain counselor behav10rs on perceived exp~rt­ ness and attractiveness. Journal ot Counseling

PsvcholO$Y, 29, 261-267 · . Beebe, S. A. (1974). Eve cornacc A nonverbal detenn1-

nant of speaker credibility. Communication Edu-

cation, 23, 21-25. Brembeck, W. L., & Howell, W. s. (1976). Persuaswn:

A means Of social influence (2nd ed.). Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Burgoon. J. K. 0976). The ideal source: A reexamma-

t10n of source credibility measuremen1. Central

States Speech Journal, 27, 200-206.

B J K Coker D. A., & Coker, R. A. (1986).

urgoon, · ., ' At t t Commu01cat1ve effecrs ot gaze behavior. es o two contrastmg explanations. Human Communi-

cation Research, 12, 495-524. Burgoon, J. K., Ma11usov, V., Min:~· P., & 1:1a_1:, J. L.

(1985). Effects of gaze on h1nng, cred1b1htv, at- traction and re1anonal message mterpretatrnn. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 9, 133-145. .

Burgoon, J. K., & Saine, T. (1978). The unspoken dia- logue: An mtroducuon to nonverbal commumca-

non. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

CBS Television (1995, October 7). Face the Nation, in- terview with Senawr Robert Dote.

Cooper, K. (1979). Nonvetbal communication for busi-

ness success. New York: AMACOM. . C-SPAN Il (1988, Julv 19). Senator Joseph Eiden press

conference. De Vito, J. A. (1980). The mterpersonal commumcatton

book (2nd ed.). New York: Harper. . . Duffy, M., & Gibbs, N. (1995, Julv 31). Is Dole too olc

for the job?: The G. o. P. presidential front nmne1 savs he's 72 years voung, but the age issue won·1

fade away. Time, 146, 26-31. .. Edinger,J A., & Patterson, M. L. (1983). Nonverbal m·

voJvement and social control. Psychological But

tetin. 93, 30-56. Erickson, B., Lind, E. A., Johnson, B. C., & Barr, W. M

0978 ). Speech swle and impress10n formation 11 ~ court settrng: The effecrs of "powerful" 3Jl( "powerless" speech. Journal of Experimental So

cial Psychology, 14, 266-279. Exline,R. V. (1985). Multichannel transm1ss1on of no~

verbal behav10r and the percept10n of powerf men: The presidential debates of 1976. In·S.1 Ellvson & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Power, aormnance and nonverbal behavwr (pp. 183-206). New Yorll

Sprmger-Verlag.

252 Part 21 Devetomng the Succes~ful Communicator

Giles, H., & Street, R. L., Jr. (1985). Commumcator charactenst1cs and behavmr. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.). Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 205-261). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gitter, G., Black, H., & Fishman, J.E. (1975). Effect of race, sex and nonverbal communication on Percep- nons of leadership. Sociology and Socwl Re- search, 60, 46-57.

Gray, J., Jr. (1982). The wmmng· image. New York: AMACOM.

Grove, L. (1988, October 9). Dukakis: If he on1v Jmd a heart. The Washington Post, pp. DI, D4.

Harper,R. G., Wiens,A. N., &Matarazzo, J. D. 0978). Nonverbal commumcatwn: The srate of the art. New York: Wiley.

Harzog, B. B. (l 995).An analysis of Senator Robe/1 Jo- seoh Dole: The impact of nonverbal cues on the credibility dimension of impression management. Unpublished paper, University ofGeorg1a, Athens, GA.

Hemsley, G.D., & Doob, A. N. (i978). The effect of looking be1iav10r on perceptions of a commumca- tor·s credibility. Journal of Applied Social Psv- chology, 8, 136-144.

Infante, D. (1980). The construct validity of semantic differential scales for the measuremem· of source credibilitv. Commumcatwn Quarterly, 28, 19-26.

lnfanie, D., Parker, K., ClarJ;e, C., Wilson, L., & Nathu, I. (1983). A compmson of factor and funct10na1 approaches to source credibility. Commumcatwn Quarterly, 31, 43-48.

Jurich, A. P., & Jurich, J. A. 0974). Correlations among nonverbal expressions of anxietv. Psvcho- logtcal Reports, 34, 199-204.

Kilgore, M. 0995). Senator Bob Dole: Jmpresswn management analysis. Unpublished paper, Univer- sity of Georgia, Athens, GA.

Kleinke, C. L. (1975). First 1mpresswns. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenuce-Hall.

Liska, J. (1978). Situational and topical vanat10ns m credibility cnreria. Commumcat1on Monographs, 45, 85-92.

Lui, L., & Standing, L. (1989). Cornmumcator credibil- itv: Trustworthiness defeats expertness. Social Be- havior and Personality, 17, 219-221.

McCroskey, J.C., & Dunham, R. E. (1966). Ethos: A confounding element m commumcat10n research. Speech Monographs, 33, 456-463.

McCroskey, J.C., & Young, T. (1981). Ethos and cred- ibilitv: The construct and its measuremem after three decades. Central States Speech Journal, 32, 24--34,

McGinmss, J. (1969). The selling of the president. 1968. New York: Trident.

McMahan, E. M. 0976). Nonverbal communiCation as a function of attribution m 1mpress1on formation. Commumcatwn Monographs, 43, 287-294.

Miller, N., Beaber, R. J., & Valone, K. (1976). Speed of speech and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 615-624.

Scherer, K. R., London, H., '&Wolf, J. J. (1973). The v01ce of confidence: Paralingmstrc cues and audi- ence evaluation. Journal of Research 'in Personali-· fy, 7, 31-44.

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). impression management. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Stemthal, B., Phillips, L. W., & Dholakia, R. (1978). The persuasive effect of source credibility: A s1tu- atJ.onaJ ana1vs1s. Public Opinion Quatterty, 42, 285-314.

Tucker, R. K. 0971). On the McCroskey scales for the measurement of ethos. Central States Speech Journal. 22, 127-129.

Webbink, P. 0986). The power of the eyes. New York: Spnnger.

--,-- \

I

I

I I I I

Chapter 12

Detecting Deception

. ciet has placed a preinium on the detection of From the beginning of recorded h1s~ory, so Y b attribuied to the fact that it occurs

f uon with deception 1nav e deception. In part, the ascina .

1 . u.ps bluf"ing euphenusms, inasks, pre-

Th "white ies cover- , 11 ' so often in so 1nany forms. us, •

1 f falsehoods fabncattons, and s1mula-

h xes and other orms o ' ,, tenses, tall-tales_, put-o?s,. oa • d honesty in huinan communication for centuries Uons I1ave coexisted with truthfulness an

(Knapp & Comadena, 1979, p. 270). t d cepuon seen1 humorous today, but thev Soine of the ancient methods used to detelc el K·no Solomon·s day, a rather unusual

t On to ferrer out the rar. n i o reflect societal determ1na i wno botn clan11ed to be the • dispute between two women

method was used to resolV!! a t tile child in two bY a sword. The woman mother of the same child. An order was given to cu b t Hing tl1e truth and u1e won1an who

t h der was presumed to e e who cried out agru.ns t e or h t Chinese also used a rather novel d to be tying T e ancien

ren1a1ned silent was pres_uine · s requi· red to chew on nee powder A s ected deceiver wa

method to detect deception. su P wder was drV the person was If f t as spit out the nee po ' while being questioned. , a ter i w ' t associared with tying would block

1uctged to be deceptive. The theory was that tne anx1e v 1969) . . It' in a dry mouth (Larson, · off the salivary glands, res~ ing . ucularly concerned with refimng metl1ods and

Law enforcement officials have been par . l ys been based on tl1e same fun- t Their efforts 11ave a wa

iechniques for detecting decep ion. 1 1

d level of arousal or anxiety at ·u exvenence an e eva e dan1ental assumption: Deceivers WI fl d . hanaes in one or more of the internal the moment of deception, which will be re ecte in c "'

states of the body. nitor changes in heart rate, blood pressure, skin ~e- The polygraph was developed to mo .. d" tors of deception (Podlesny & Raskin,

d hvsiolog1cat in ica s1stance, and other presume P . . th t measures palpitations of the stomach 1977). Israeii police have begun using a devicetl ; are interrogating A number of corpo- to detect deception of terrons1 suspects ~h;: l~valuator be used ;hen job prospects are rations now require that the Psychotog1ca ess k icrotremors of the voice tnar indi- being interviewed. This device is designed to pie up m care that deception is occurnng (Goodwin, 1975).

253