Exploring Gendered Nonverbal Behavior in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Debates

The purpose of our paper is to explore the gendered double-bind in political communication. Research by argumentation scholars and others point to a double standard in media portrayals of nonverbal behavior by male and female politicians. Our analysis will rely on primarily strategic maneuvering to examine closely the ways in which gender stereotypes were enacted by U.S. Presidential candidates during televised debates in 2016

“Are You a Good Witch or a Bad Witch?”: An Exercise in Suspending Judgment when Interacting with “Difficult” People

Courses: Interpersonal Communication, Health Communication Objectives: In this single-class activity, students gain awareness and practice in suspending judgments about “difficult” people in order to understand the reasoning behind certain objectionable behavior

Make No Apologies: Fear of Negative Evaluation, Depressive Symptoms, and the Mediating Role of Accounting for COVID-Safe Behavior Amongst People at High-Risk for Severe Illness

With the goal of understanding unique and important threats to the mental health of people who are especially vulnerable to severe illness as a result of COVID-19, this study investigated associations between such individuals\u27 fear of negative evaluation, tendency to account for practicing COVID-safe behaviors, and depressive symptoms. Grounded in perspectives on self-presentation, normative influence, and cognitive dissonance, we hypothesized that fear of negative evaluation would relate positively to accounting for COVID-safe behaviors, which, in turn, would associate positively with increased depressive symptoms. The results showed that increased fear of negative evaluation predicted an increased use of apologies and excuses, which in turn were positively related to depressive symptoms. Justifications for COVID-safe behaviors were not significantly associated with either fear of evaluation or depressive symptoms. The practical and theoretical implications are discussed

Impression Management in Televised Debates: The Effect of Background Nonverbal Behavior on Audience Perceptions of Debaters' Likeability

This study examined whether a debater's background nonverbal behavior affected audience perceptions of her and her opponent's likeability. Students watched one of four versions of a televised debate. In each, while the speaking debater appeared on the main screen, subscreens displayed her opponent's background nonverbal behavior. In one version, the nonspeaking debater displayed a neutral expression, whereas in the others she displayed occasional disagreement, nearly constant disagreement, or both agreement and disagreement. After viewing the debates, students rated the debaters' likeability. Analysis indicated that background behavior influenced perceptions of the nonverbal communicator but not of the speaking debater

Telling lies:The irrepressible truth?

Telling a lie takes longer than telling the truth but precisely why remains uncertain. We investigated two processes suggested to increase response times, namely the decision to lie and the construction of a lie response. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants were directed or chose whether to lie or tell the truth. A colored square was presented and participants had to name either the true color of the square or lie about it by claiming it was a different color. In both experiments we found that there was a greater difference between lying and telling the truth when participants were directed to lie compared to when they chose to lie. In Experiments 3 and 4, we compared response times when participants had only one possible lie option to a choice of two or three possible options. There was a greater lying latency effect when questions involved more than one possible lie response. Experiment 5 examined response choice mechanisms through the manipulation of lie plausibility. Overall, results demonstrate several distinct mechanisms that contribute to additional processing requirements when individuals tell a lie

Consumer Persuasion: The Use of Evidence When Negotiating the Price of a New Automobile

This study examined whether consumers’ use of evidence affected the price at which car salespersons offered to sell a vehicle. Two versions of a message–one containing evidence about the wholesale/invoice price of a vehicle and the other containing no evidence–were e-mailed to 134 sales managers at different Toyota dealerships. The prices offered by salespersons were collected and analyzed. Results indicated that sales managers who had received messages with evidence offered to sell the vehicle for a significantly lower price than did sales managers who received no evidence. These results, their implications, and avenues for future research are discussed

Consumer Persuasion: The Use of Evidence WhenNegotiating the Price of an Automobile

This study examined whether consumers’ use of evidence affected the price at which car salespersons offered to sell a vehicle. Two versions of a message–one containing evidence about the wholesale/invoice price of a vehicle and the other containing no evidence–were e-mailed to 134 sales managers at different Toyota dealerships. The prices offered by salespersons were collected and analyzed. Results indicated that sales managers who had received messages with evidence offered to sell the vehicle for a significantly lower price than did sales managers who received no evidence. These results, their implications, and avenues for future research are discussed

Does Communicating Nonverbal Disagreement During an Opponent\u27s Speech Affect the Credibility of the Debater in the Background?

Compared to televised debates using a single-screen format, those using a split screen presenting both debaters simultaneously show viewers the nonverbal reactions of a debater\u27s opponent. This study examined the effect of such nonverbal reactions on viewers\u27 ratings of the nonverbal communicator\u27s credibility. students watched one of four versions of a televised debate. One version used a single-screen format, showing only the speaker, while the other three versions used a split-screen format in which the speaker\u27s opponent displayed constant, occasional, or no nonverbal disagreement with the speaker. After watching the videos, students rated the opponent\u27s credibility using the Source Credibility Scale of McCroskey, et al. Analysis indicated that nonverbal disagreement by the nonspeaking debater, especially when constant, lowered his ratings of competence, composure, and sociability, while constant disagreement decreased his ratings of character while increasing his ratings of extroversion. These results and their implications are discussed