Nonverbal Cues

Abstract

Nonverbal cues consist of those elements of expression that convey social rather than factual information and serve as rich communicative signals carried in all forms of visual or aural media. In media effects research, nonverbal cues have been primarily associated with emotional expression, particularly facial displays, bodily gestures, and voice tone, but they can take other forms of physical appearance or interaction. As research into nonverbal communication has advanced, so has the sophistication of the concepts used to frame these studies. Theories of nonverbal influence are drawn from diverse academic traditions, such as cognitive, evolutionary, and social psychology, media studies, and interpersonal communication. Conceptual frameworks employed to study nonverbal cues include appearance-based inferences, nonverbal expectancy violations theory, stereotype activation, affective socialization, and visual framing. While impactful, nonverbal cues do not have uniform effects; several intervening variables can moderate the way nonverbal cues are received and interpreted.

Full text

Nonverbal Cues
Erik P. Bucy
Texas Tech University, USA
Nonverbal cues consist of those elements of expression that convey social rather than
factual information and serve as rich communicative signals carried in all forms of
visual or aural media. Nonverbal cues, which work in conjunction with language but
have eects independently of verbal communication, can enhance or distract from
spokenmeaninginbothinterpersonalandmediatedsettings.Inmediaeectsresearch,
nonverbal cues have been primarily associated with emotional expression, particularly
facial displays, bodily gestures, and voice tone, but they can take other forms too, both
in physical appearance and in interaction: skin and hair color, proxemics, posture,
facial morphology, eye blinks, staring or gaze aversion, body size and shape, clothing
style, or categories of touch. In the digital age, nonverbal cues that signal emotion and
appearance, such as emoticons and avatars, now also saturate online and networked
communication, as do vocal messaging and full video conferencing.
Research on nonverbal cues has always been a multidisciplinary enterprise. e
importance of nonverbal cues to eective speech delivery, even the observation
that nonverbal presentation may at times overwhelm or exert more inuence than
rhetorical substance, was recognized by the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers,
including Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian (Knapp, 2006). Darwin’s (1872) e
Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, which used photography and close
observational techniques to investigate facial expressions and behavioral gestures in
light of evolutionary principles, is widely recognized as putting the study of emotional
expression on a scientic footing. In the modern era, the systematic study of nonverbal
cues in communication did not commence until the mid-twentieth century, and the
early seminal works (e.g., Goman, 1959; Hall, 1959) largely came from outside the
discipline. During the 1960s and 1970s, research in nonverbal communication enjoyed
a period of heightened interest in social psychology but with the cognitive revolution
behavioral research in psychology waned (Patterson, 2014). Interpersonal communi-
cation researchers then began to assume the mantle of nonverbal studies, in harmony
with growing public interest in emotional life and relationship dynamics (Knapp, 2006).
Over the past several decades, most of the research in nonverbal communication
has been conducted by interpersonal researchers, typically in nonmediated relational
settings. At the same time, a literature has been building in media eects that con-
siders the impact of nonverbal cues on viewer perceptions and evaluations across a
range of dierent genres, from news and politics to advertising, health, and entertain-
ment. Moreover, through social media and other online communication platforms,
e International Encyclopedia of Media Eects.
Patrick Rössler (Editor-in-Chief ), Cynthia A. Honer, and Liesbet van Zoonen (Associate Editors).
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0199

2NONVERBAL CUES
there has been a gradual merging of mass and interpersonal processes that is blur-
ring the boundaries between traditional conceptions of interpersonal and other levels
of communication (e.g., group, organizational, mass), although audience size works
to preserve this distinction. Interestingly, there has also been a resurgence of interest
in nonverbals from psychology and related disciplines, which have shown renewed
interest in facial cues as a basis for rapid inferences and heuristic decision making
(see Todorov, 2011).
isentryfocusesnextonthemediacontextsinwhichnonverbalcuesarestud-
ied, then reviews the major theories employed to predict nonverbal media eects. As
the literature has grown, so has the sophistication of the concepts used to frame stud-
ies.Lastly,factorsthatinuenceperceptionsofnonverbalcuesaresummarized,with
attention to aspects of media presentation, the context in which nonverbal behavior is
shown, the appropriateness of dierent display behaviors, and individual dierences
that act as moderators of nonverbal media eects. e discussion argues that develop-
ment of the eld depends on conducting multimodal analyses that are not reliant on
a single communication channel and on studying patterns or repertories of behavior
above and beyond isolated cues.
Media contexts
TVnews,particularlycoverageofpolitics,providesthemostcommonmediacontext
in which the eects of nonverbal cues are studied. Since the face is the most expres-
sive communication channel and presidential candidates are among the most heavily
covered persons on the news, the facial displays of leading candidates for oce have
received considerable research attention. Facial expressions are reliable indicators of a
communicator’s emotional state and serve as heuristic cues for judgments about polit-
ically relevant traits, including competence, integrity, dominance, and appropriateness
(Bucy, 2011). Inferences of facial competence, in turn, predict electoral success—even
aer controlling for a number of other salient predictors (Olivola & Todorov, 2010).
With the personalization of politics internationally, parties are increasingly highlight-
ing the visual appeal of individual candidates. Studies of campaign posters in France and
theNetherlands,forinstance,showgrowingrelianceoncandidate-orientedvisualsand
use of nonverbal cues, including eye contact, designed to persuade voters (Dumitrescu,
2010; Vliegenthart, 2012).
Expressive inuence is determined in part by facial morphology (attractive and
mature faces tend to be rated higher in competence) as well as by display ecacy. ree
prototypical displays, representing the emotion expressed and behavioral intention
signaled, are oen studied in political nonverbal research: happiness–reassurance,
anger–threat, and fear–evasion. Gestures signaling anity and deance are also
examined for the ways in which they complement facial displays.
Documenting the frequency with which candidates exhibit dierent displays and
accompanying gestures has allowed researchers to identify display repertoires,orpat-
ternsofnonverbalbehavior,thatcandidatesengageinacrossnewscoverageofelections

NONVERBAL CUES 3
and presidential debates. While less nuanced than facial expressions, gestures work in
tandem with expressions and are thought to amplify their eect, as the work of Peter
Bull (1987) has shown in the United Kingdom. In the United States, a longitudinal
study of network news coverage revealed that trailing candidates and debate “losers”
were presented more oen with anger–threat expressions and deance gestures (n-
ger pointing, st raising, head shaking), while debate “winners” were more likely to be
shown smiling and engaging in anity behaviors that imply bonding, compassion, or
friendship (Grabe & Bucy, 2009).
As is evident from close analysis of news, the human repertoire of expressive displays
is highly variable and nuanced. Competitive races may bring out more agonistic non-
verbal behavior, or aggressive encounters, between candidates, including threat, attack,
appeasement, or retreat. In France, supporters were shown to rally around anger–threat
displays more than in the American context (Masters & Sullivan, 1989), although this
researchwasconductedwellbeforetheriseofDonaldTrumpintheUnitedStates.Anal-
ysis of display repertoires during the 2012 presidential debates between Barack Obama
and Mitt Romney showed Romney to be more aggressive and Obama more appeasing
and evasive in the rst debate (Bucy & Gong, 2016). By the third debate, the dynamics
had shied: Obama was more assertive, used an aggressive tone of voice, made more
rigid and emphatic gestures, and showed very little evasiveness.
In any persuasive encounter, a large part of nonverbal inuence stems from voice tone
and variability. Voice tone is a paralinguistic cue present in all spoken communication
that imparts the emotion of the speaker while modulating the meaning of what is being
said. Voice tone also signals social intent, whether to communicate reassurance, as in a
friendly tone, or disapproval or even hostility, as in an angry or threatening tone.
More masculine-sounding voices have been associated with physical strength and
social dominance in men and women (and with attractiveness in men); voice pitch also
inuences perceptions of leadership capacity regardless of the communicator’s sex. A
study of organizational reputation in Belgium found that lower-pitched voices are pre-
ferred in corporate spokespersons during times of crisis (Claeys & Cauberghe, 2014).
Voice pitch has also been linked to perceptions of dominance and having a “command-
ing presence” among candidates in presidential debates (Gregory & Gallaher, 2002).
In content analysis of political news, sound bites from challengers and debate losers
havebeencategorizedasmoreaggressiveintonethanstatementsmadebyincumbents
and frontrunners (Grabe & Bucy, 2009)—a behavioral pattern consistent with etholog-
ical observations that have documented aggression in second-ranking individuals or
challengers to power.
Nonverbal cues in the lead-ins, wrap-ups, and reaction shots of media gures may
also lead to perceptions of visual bias. Across dierent media genres—newscasts, talk
shows, and televised interviews—valenced expressions on the part of an interviewer,
anchor, or host can signicantly inuence trait evaluations and other dimensions of
image perception of politicians and newsmakers, leading to accusations of partiality, as
Haumer and Donsbach (2009) showed in the German context. Reaction shots of stu-
dio audiences can also moderate perceptions. Structural forms of visual bias have been
further documented through dierential use of camera angles, shot lengths, and other

4NONVERBAL CUES
production features that favor one politician at the expense of another (Kepplinger,
1991).
Although content analysis of print media rarely nds evidence of media bias, viewers
who perceive visual bias may be picking up on the more subtle, nonverbal elements of
media coverage, including facial expressions and production techniques, that are only
captured in visual studies.
Skin color and body image are other nonverbal cues prominently displayed in
visual media that have attitudinal and even behavioral eects on viewers. In TV news,
experimental research has shown that shading the color of a crime suspect while
leaving all other features identical activates stereotypes against racial minorities that
resultingreatersupportforpunitivecrimepolicies,suchastreatingjuvenilesasadults,
approving of harsh sentencing guidelines, and endorsing the death penalty (Gilliam &
Iyengar, 2000).
Skin color also inuences political perceptions, and coloration techniques have
been used against black candidates. A large-scale survey-experiment of white voters
in the United States found that respondents, regardless of political orientation, tended
to assign positive qualities to lighter skinned black candidates over darker skin
depictions (Weaver, 2012). Using an original method to detect skin complexion in
the pixilation of digital content, Messing, Jabon, and Plaut (2015) demonstrated that
campaign advertisements attacking Obama in 2008 used darker shaded images in
stereotype-consistent attack ads—and these images became more frequent as Election
Day approached. In an experiment that varied complexion, darkened images of Obama
were“morelikelytoprimethemostnegativestereotypesassociatedwithBlacks”
(p. 18) by comparison to lighter skinned portrayals.
Computer soware is gradually revolutionizing the study of face perception and cod-
ingofnonverbalcues,enablingresearchersnotonlytochangethecolorandcomplexion
of stimulus faces but also to measure and manipulate the facial compositions that indi-
vidual experimental subjects see. An innovative study of facial blending, grounded in
the evolutionary notion of kinship cues, found that facial similarity between voters and
candidates (a literal 60:40 computerized blend of the candidate’s face with the subject’s)
produced enhanced support for the blended face by comparison to the original can-
didate’s image among weak partisans and independents. is familiarity eect did not
work on strong partisans, however (Bailenson et al., 2008).
Research on nonverbal cues consistently nds robust eects in carefully controlled
experimental settings. e inuence of nonverbal cues operates outside the lab as well.
In advertising, a connection can be drawn between a model’s facial expression and the
likelihood that the viewing audience will share the emotion vicariously (Chaudhuri
& Buck, 1995). e face is not the only site of nonverbal inuence, however. As
health communication studies of “ideal” body types in advertising and other genres
have shown, feelings of anger, inadequacy, and lowered self-esteem may result from
repeated exposure to depictions of ideal attractiveness (Hargreaves & Tiggermann,
2002). In certain cases, the activation of an appearance-based schema may produce
body dissatisfaction, which has been associated with eating disorders and negative
attitudes toward larger body types.

NONVERBAL CUES 5
Theories of nonverbal influence
eories of nonverbal inuence are drawn from diverse academic traditions, includ-
ing cognitive, evolutionary, and social psychology, media studies, and interpersonal
communication. ese predictive frameworks can be organized along a continuum
of time, where some concepts and theories explain eects that are generated rapidly,
almost automatically, on the basis of very brief exposures to processes that unfold over
thecourseofamediatedeventanditsaermath—inhours,days,orweeks—ortopro-
cessesthatcantakemonthsorevenyearstodevelop,throughcontinuedexposureto
nonverbalcuesoveracriticalperiodorlifestage.
From cognitive psychology and behavioral economics, the “thin slice” forecast litera-
ture has shown that brief exemplars of political stimuli, namely candidate photographs
or short image bites (video clips with no sound), provide viewers with enough social
information to make reliable inferences about candidate competence and electoral
suitability. Inferences drawn from close-ups of human faces are particularly accurate
and predictive of candidate viability, serving as a heuristic or judgmental shortcut in
thepoliticalevaluationprocess.Inonesuchstudy,inferencesofcompetencebased
solely on 1-second exposures to black-and-white headshots of major party candidates
for Congress predicted actual election outcomes with almost 70% accuracy (Todorov
et al., 2005).
In evolutionary terms, the human brain has had a remarkably short amount of time
to adapt to and specialize in oral and especially written forms of communication—tens
of thousands of years by most accounts (Diamond, 2006; Grabe, 2012). By contrast, the
highly developed capacity for visual perception evolved over millions of years, as the
hominoid brain increased in size and specialization. e ease with which nonverbals are
processed owes in large part to the substantial neurological investment in vision, which
encompasses specialized centers in the brain dedicated to visual processing, particularly
of faces. Image processing is so ecient that aective responses, visual recognition, and
trait inferences occur well before registering in conscious awareness. Indeed, while it
takes about a half-second (500 ms) for the brain to represent sensory data in conscious-
ness, accurate facial inferences can occur in just 100 ms. Even when observers are given
more time to carefully evaluate images of others, “the speed, automaticity, and implicit
nature of appearance-based trait inferences make them particularly hard to correct”
(Olivola & Todorov, 2010, p. 106).
Upalevel,withinthetimeframeofanewsreport,politicalad,orteleviseddebate,
theories from interpersonal communication and social psychology are oen invoked to
explain the consequences of nonverbal cues in mediated contexts. Although formulated
attheinterpersonallevelofanalysis,nonverbal expectancy violations theory and stereo-
type activation scale up productively to media settings, in part because much of what we
see in television, in lm, and on digital platforms was originally produced face to face.
“In this sense, nonverbal cues displayed in the media, although more self-conscious,
scripted, rehearsed, and aided by image consultants and makeup artists, are inevitably
subject to the same rules of production and interpretation as nonverbal behavior in
other, unmediated contexts” (Manusov & Jaworski, 2006, p. 251).

6NONVERBAL CUES
Expectancy violations theory holds that people enter a communication exchange
anticipating what behaviors are “possible, feasible, appropriate, and typical for a par-
ticular setting, purpose, and set of participants” (Burgoon & Hale, 1988, p. 60). When
anonverbaldisplayfallsoutsideanexpectedrangeofnormativebehavior,thethe-
ory holds that arousal will increase, causing observers to allocate greater attention to
the source of the violation. Increased scrutiny then produces critical assessments and
may generate heightened anxiety. Research in political communication has gainfully
employed expectancy violations theory to demonstrate the emotional, evaluative, and
cognitive consequences of inappropriate political behavior across a range of news and
competitive contexts (see Bucy, 2011).
Like other nonverbal cues that facilitate decision making under conditions of
incomplete information or uncertainty, stereotypes are everyday beliefs about social
groups that are frequently relied upon for making sense of the social world. Whereas
much research into nonverbal cues focuses on the evaluation of individuals, stereotype
activation operates at the level of group identity. Besides routine simplication,
stereotypes bias the way incoming information is processed, minimizing in-group
and exaggerating out-group dierences. rough repeated exposure to suggestive
portrayals, associations may be formed that lead to chronic or automatic activation of
stereotypical information over time. Research on the psychological impact of overrep-
resentingblacksascriminalsonlocalnews,forinstance,hasshownthatdark-skinned
black perpetrators are remembered better and generate more emotional concern than
white perpetrators, especially for heavy TV news viewers (Dixon & Maddox, 2005).
Because stereotypical portrayals simplify and distort social reality, they can neg-
atively inuence how dierent groups perceive and treat one another over time.
Long-termexposuretononverbalcuesinthemediacanhavepositiveoutcomesas
well, as illustrated by the theory of aective socialization. Far from being a source of idle
entertainment for children, television and other media play an important role in the
communication and modeling of nonverbal behavioral skills (Coats & Feldman, 1995).
In particular, audiovisual media can serve as a rich source of aective information and
function as a signicant channel through which young viewers learn how to encode
and decode emotional expressions, including situations when certain expressions are
appropriate. Indeed, children oen encounter certain emotional situations through
media long before they experience the corresponding feelings and expressions in real
life.StudieshavefoundthatchildrenwhoarefrequentTVviewersarebetterableto
decode facial expressions but also develop a less complete and nuanced view of the
consequences of nonverbal self-presentation (Feldman, Coats, & Spielman, 1996). A
drawback to aective socialization through media, at least through television, is that
programming oen renders a simplistic view of emotional experience—and this view
may be internalized by young viewers.
Visual framing is another conceptual approach to studying nonverbal cues with
eects that unfold over time. Image frames consist of recurring visual markers assigned
byjournaliststocelebrities,candidates,orothernewsmakerstoemphasizecertain
aspects of character or performance that promote particular understandings or eval-
uations. e extent to which political candidates are visually depicted as having ideal
attributes, mass appeal, or losing qualities, for instance, may determine their ability to

NONVERBAL CUES 7
surfacefromthepackorbewinnowedfromthepoolofcontenders(Grabe&Bucy,
2009). In the case of mass appeal, specic visual framing elements—detectable through
content analysis—may consist of images of large and approving crowds, reaction shots
of supporters armatively nodding, smiling, or gesturing, mingling with “regular
folks,” and a casual style of dress. A comprehensive approach to visual framing rst
identies the salient frames emphasized in media coverage over a sampling period
(e.g., one or more election cycles), then denes and catalogs the constituent elements
of those frames. Over time, consistent visual framing and image-building strategies
have the capacity to shape perceptions of momentum and authenticity.
Moderators of nonverbal cues
Whileimpactful,nonverbalcuesdonothaveuniformeects;severalintervening
variables can moderate the way nonverbal cues are received. In TV news, the context
or visual environment in which nonverbal behaviors are presented can greatly aect
viewer responses to the display. When shown an expressive leader display immediately
aerthepresentationofanegativelycompellingnewsreport,forinstance,viewers
assess the display in relation to the level of threat represented in the report. In general,
positive and intense reactions to crisis news are classied as inappropriate, while
negative and calm reactions are regarded as appropriate. When addressing a crisis,
appropriateleaderdisplayselicitmorepositiveemotion,arebetteratmitigatinganx-
iety, and produce more favorable trait evaluations than inappropriate displays (Bucy,
2011). Assessments of communicator appropriateness, in turn, moderate how much
attention is allocated to a display, the level of arousal that viewers experience, and what
is remembered from the presentation (Gong & Bucy, 2016). Altering the geopolitical
context from peacetime to wartime also aects preference for more masculine and
dominant facial traits (Little et al., 2007).
On the receiver side of the equation, several individual-dierence variables have
been shown to moderate the inuence of nonverbal cues; these include gender, viewer
sophistication, political support, TV exposure, national culture, and need for cognition.
Despite consistent ndings in the interpersonal literature that women are better able to
accurately read nonverbal cues than men (Hall, 2006), few studies have researched this
question with regards to media eects. Experimental studies conducted by Masters and
colleagues in the Reagan–Bush era found that female viewers who were critical or neu-
tral toward a leader responded more negatively to televised depictions of anger–threat
than male viewers, whereas they responded more positively to happiness–reassurance
displays (Masters, 2001). ese results are consistent with ndings that show women
to be more emotionally aversive to negative stimuli than men (Grabe, 2012).
Viewer sophistication, amount of TV viewing, and political support are also impor-
tant moderators of nonverbal inuence. Several studies have shown that less knowl-
edgeable voters are more likely to base their voting decisions on candidate appear-
ance than more knowledgeable voters; TV reliance promotes this tendency (Olivola &
Todorov, 2010). Partisans and viewers in agonistic political cultures are also more likely
torespondfavorablytocandidatedisplaysofanger–threat,whilecriticscanbedisarmed

8NONVERBAL CUES
by expressions of happiness–reassurance (Masters, 2001). When assessing nonverbal
cues, broad dierences in gender, political orientation, or culture need to be distin-
guished from the eects of personality. Need for cognition, for instance, can moderate
social and political evaluations such that those with a low need for cognition may engage
more with a candidate’s televised interview than with the same information presented
on Twitter, whereas those high in need for cognition prefer Twitter (Lee, 2013).
Future directions
Looking ahead, the study of nonverbal cues in media will be increasingly characterized
by automated analysis and digital platform comparisons. e ability to run a soware
package that automatically documents in ne detail the range of nonverbal cues and
expressive behavior in media will greatly accelerate coding and provide researchers
with visual variables that could be widely used in research. e availability of such data
will enable comparisons across time and between new media platforms on a scale that
is simply not feasible with manual coding. Moreover, considering media content for its
narrative and visual elements could transform existing theories and understandings of
communication and behavior, since many of those theories are based on verbal content
exclusively.
In addition, research should focus less on isolated cues or channels of presentation
and more on patterns of behavior that measure or manipulate multiple nonverbal cues
in a single study (see Patterson, 2014). Here the concept of display repertoires,which
considers the interplay of facial expressions, bodily gestures, and vocal tone, could have
utility in research that strives to understand how multiple, coordinated behaviors con-
verge to form a candidate or newsmaker’s communication style. Another research strat-
egy that would advance the eld involves comparisons between dynamic and static
portrayals (Olivola & Todorov, 2010), a move that would further clarify the unique con-
tribution of dierent media presentation modalities and provide research with a more
nuanced understanding of nonverbal inuence.
SEE ALSO: Evolutionary Approaches to Media Processes and Eects; Key Events: Media
and Audience Eects; Media Representation: Health and Body Images; Media Rep-
resentation: Politics; Media Representation: Racial and Ethnic Stereotypes; Priming;
Social Learning eory and Social Cognitive eory; Visual Communication Eects:
Moving Images; Visual Framing
References
Bailenson, J., Iyengar, S., Yee, N., & Collins, N. (2008). Facial similarity between voters and can-
didates causes inuence. Public Opinion Quarterly,72, 935–961. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfn064
Bucy, E. P. (2011). Nonverbal communication, emotion, and political evaluation. In E. Konijn,
K. Koveling, & C. von Scheve (Eds.), Handbook of emotions and mass media (pp. 195–220).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Bucy, E. P., & Gong, Z. H. (2016). Image bite analysis of presidential debates. In R. X. Brown-
ing (Ed.), Exploring the C-SPAN archives: Advancing the research agenda (pp. 45–75). West

NONVERBAL CUES 9
Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Bull, P. E. (1987). Posture and gesture. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Burgoon, J.K., & Hale, J.L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration
and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs,55(1), 58–79. doi:
10.1080/03637758809376158
Chaudhuri, A., & Buck, R. (1995). Aect, reason, and persuasion: Advertising strategies that pre-
dict aective and analytic cognitive responses. Human Communication Research,21, 422–441.
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1995.tb00353.x
Claeys, A.-S., & Cauberghe, V. (2014). Keeping control: e importance of nonverbal expressions
of power by organizational spokespersons in times of crisis. Journal of Communication,64,
1160–1180. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12122
Coats, E. J., & Feldman, R. S. (1995). e role of television in the socialization of non-
verbal behavioral skills. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,17, 327–341. doi: 10.1207/
s15324834basp1703_3
Darwin, C. (1872). e expression of the emotions in man and animals.London,UK:JohnMurray.
Diamond, J. (2006). e third chimpanzee: e evolution and future of the human animal.New
York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Dixon, T. L., & Maddox, K. B. (2005). Skin tone, crime news, and social reality judgments: Prim-
ingthestereotypeofthedarkanddangerousblackcriminal.Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy,35(8), 1555–1570. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02184.x
Dumitrescu, D. (2010). Know me, love me, fear me: e anatomy of candidate poster
designs in the 2007 French legislative elections. Political Communication,27(1), 20–43. doi:
10.1080/10584600903297117
Feldman, R. S., Coats, E. J., & Spielman, D.A. (1996). Television exposure and children’s
decoding of nonverbal behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,26, 1718–1733. doi:
10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb00094.x
Gilliam, F., Jr., & Iyengar, S. (2000). Prime suspects: e inuence of local television news on the
viewing public. American Journal of Political Science,44, 560–573. doi: 10.2307/2669264
Goman, E. (1959). e presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Gong, Z. H., & Bucy, E. P. (2016). When style obscures substance: Visual attention to dis-
play appropriateness in the 2012 presidential debates. Communication Monographs.doi:
10.1080/03637751.2015.1119868
Grabe, M. E. (2012). News as reality-inducing, survival-relevant, and gender-specic stimuli. In
S. C. Roberts (Ed.), Applied evolutionary psychology (pp. 361–398). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Grabe, M. E., & Bucy, E. P. (2009). Image bite politics: News and the visual framing of elections.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Gregory, S. W., Jr., & Gallagher, T. J. (2002). Spectral analysis of candidates’ nonverbal vocal com-
munication: Predicting US presidential election outcomes. Social Psychology Quarterly,65,
298–308. doi: 10.2307/3090125
Hall, E. T. (1959). e silent language.NewYork,NY:Doubleday.
Hall, J.A. (2006). Women’s and men’s nonverbal communication: Similarities, dierences,
stereotypes, and origins. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), e Sage handbook of non-
verbal communication (pp. 201–218). ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hargreaves, D., & Tiggermann, M. (2002). e eect of television commercials on mood and
body dissatisfaction: e role of the appearance-schema activation. Journal of Social and Clin-
ical Psychology,21, 287–308. doi: 10.1521/jscp.21.3.287.22532
Haumer, F., & Donsbach, W. (2009). e rivalry of nonverbal cues on the perception of politi-
cians by television viewers. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,53(2), 262–279. doi:
10.1080/08838150902907918

10 NONVERBAL CUES
Kepplinger, H. M. (1991). e impact of presentation techniques: eoretical aspects and empiri-
cal ndings. In F. Biocca (Ed.), Telev ision and political advertising: Vol. 1. Psychological processes
(pp. 173–194). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Knapp, M. L. (2006). An historical overview of nonverbal research. In V. Manusov & M. L. Pat-
terson (Eds.), e Sage handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 3–19). ousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Lee, E.-J. (2013). Eectiveness of politicians’ so campaign on Twitter versus TV: Cognitive and
experiential routes. Journal of Communication,63, 953–974.
Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., Jones, B. C., & Roberts, S. C. (2007). Facial appearance aects voting
decisions. Evolution and Human Behavior,28, 18–27. doi: 0.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.09.002
Manusov, V., & Jaworski, A. (2006). Casting nonverbal behavior in the media: Representations
andresponses.InV.Manusov&M.L.Patterson(Eds.),e Sage handbook of nonverbal com-
munication (pp. 237–255). ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Masters, R. D. (2001). Cognitive neuroscience, emotion, and leadership. In J. H. Kuklinski (Ed.),
Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology (pp. 68–102). New York, NY: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Masters, R. D., & Sullivan, D.G. (1989). Nonverbal displays and political leadership in France
and the United States. Political Behavior,11, 121–130. doi: 10.1007/bf00992491
Messing, S., Jabon, M., & Plaut, E. (2015). Bias in the esh: Skin complexion and stereo-
type consistency in political campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly,80(1), 44–65. doi:
10.1093/poq/nfv046
Olivola, C. Y., & Todorov, A. (2010). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait infer-
ences and voting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,34(2), 83–110. doi: 10.1007/s10919-009-
0082-1
Patterson, M.L. (2014). Reections on historical trends and prospects in contemporary nonver-
bal research. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,38, 171–180. doi: 10.1007/s10919-013-0171-z
Todorov, A. (2011). Evaluating faces on social dimensions. In A. Todorov, S. Fiske, & D. Prentice
(Eds.), Social neuroscience: Toward understanding the underpinnings of the social mind (pp.
54–76). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C.C. (2005). Inferences of competence from
faces predict election outcomes. Science,308(5728), 1623–1626. doi: 10.1126/science.1110589
Vliegenthart, R. (2012). e professionalization of political communication? A longitudinal anal-
ysis of Dutch election campaign posters. American Behavioral Scientist,56(2), 135–150.
Weaver, V. M. (2012). e electoral consequences of skin color: e “hidden” side of race in
politics. Political Behavior,34, 159–192. doi: 10.1007/s11109-010-9152-7
Further reading
Ekman, P. (2007). Emotions revealed: Recognizing faces and feelings to improve communication
and emotional life (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Henry Holt.
Guerrero, L. K., & Hecht, M. L. (Eds.) (2007). e nonverbal communication reader: Classic and
contemporary readings (3rd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
LaFrance, M. (2011). Lip service: Smiles in life, death, trust, lies, work, memory, sex, and politics.
NewYork,NY:W.W.Norton.
Erik P. Bucy earned his PhD from the University of Maryland, College Park, USA. He
is the Marshall and Sharleen Formby Regents Professor of Strategic Communication at

NONVERBAL CUES 11
Texas Tech University, USA. His books include Image Bite Politics: News and the Visual
Framing of Elections (with M. E. Grabe, 2009) and the Sourcebook for Political Commu-
nication Research: Methods, Measures, and Analytical Techniques (with R. L. Holbert,
2013). His research focuses on visual and nonverbal analysis of political news, norma-
tive theories of media and democracy, and public opinion about the press.