KEYNOTE: The Central Role of Nonverbal Immediacy in

KEYNOTE: The Central Role of Nonverbal Immediacy in

The Central role of Nonverbal
Immediacy in Communicating
and Experiencing Affect.
Dr. Peter Andersen
Professor Emeritus
School of Communication
San Diego State University
The Power of Nonverbal Communication
•  Phylogenetically primary
•  Ontogenetically primary
•  Continuous/omnipresent
•  Multi-channeled
•  Simultaneously redundant
•  Authentic-believed over verbal
•  More biological, cross-cultural system
Nonverbal Immediacy Behaviors are
actions that:
•  Communicate Warmth
•  Signal Availability for Communication
•  Reduce Psychological Distance
•  Increase Sensory Stimulation
•  Signal Approach and Involvement
Tactile (Haptic) Behavior
•  Perhaps the most involving, intimate nonverbal behavior
•  Some people think of this as part of proxemic behavior
•  Especially important in familial and romantic relationships
Warm Tactile Contact in Close
Relationships
Tactile Communication
(appropriately strong)
Proxemic (Spatial) Behaviors
Interpersonal spatial behaviors that produce increased immediacy
Closer Interpersonal Distances
Direct Body Orientation
Same Physical Plane
Physical Plane with Children
Kinesic Behaviors
Bodies in Motion
Positive Facial Affect (e.g. Smiling)
Open vs Closed Body Positions
Gestural Animation
Head Nods
(especially when listening)
Vocalic (Paralinguistic) Behavior
•  Appropriate Volume
•  Appropriate Rate
•  Pitch Variation
•  Vocal Animation
•  Backchannel Behaviors
Vocalic Behavior
Oculesic (Visual) Behavior
Communication behavior with the eyes
Direct Eye Contact
Pupil Dilation
Chronemic (Time) Behavior
The interpersonal use of time.
Spending Time
Sharing Talk Time
Not Wasting time
Chronemics
•  Waiting Time
•  Arrival Time
•  Departures
Interactional Synchrony
Immediacy is a multichannelled Gestalt
•  Immediacy is sent as a gestalt
•  Immediacy is received a gestalt
Measuring Nonverbal Immediacy
Behavioral Indicants of Immediacy (BII)
•  Ratings of interactants Perceptions on Likert Scales
•  28, 20, and 15 item versions for interpersonal and Instructional Comm.
•  Internal Reliability .86 to .95
Generalized Immediacy Scale (GI)
•  Ratings of Gestalt Perceptions of Interactants on semantic differentials.
•  9 and 5 item scales available in interpersonal and Instructional Comm.
•  Internal Reliability .89 to .98 M=.97 for 9-item interpersonal version.
Rater’s Perception of Immediacy Scale (RI)
•  Raters’ Perception of Nonverbal Immediacy on Likert Scales
•  11 item scale
•  Internal Reliability from .79 to .97
Additional Psychometrics
Test Retest and Validity Data available in:
Andersen, P. A. & Andersen, J. F. (2005). The measurement of
nonverbal immediacy. In V. Manusov (Ed). The Sourcebook of
Nonverbal Measures: Going Beyond Words, (pp. 113-126). Erlbaum
Publishing.
Interpersonal Benefits of Immediacy
•  Creates increased interpersonal attraction
•  Essential for relationship development
•  Produces feelings of intimacy and closeness
•  Vital in social support and comforting
•  Important for relational and marital satisfaction
Importance of Immediacy for New
Acquaintances
• 
.52
(canonical correlation) Immediacy (behavioral .89, general .89) with
Attraction (social .95, physical, .77, task .39).
•  .43 (canonical correlation) Immediacy (behavioral .87, general .91) with
Similarity (attitude similarity .88, background similarity .77, value similarity .73).
•  . 59 (canonical correlation) Immediacy (behavioral .96, general .80) with
Competence (sociability .87, extroversion, .82, composure .67).
Source: Jensen and Andersen (1979)
Predicting Interpersonal Solidarity from
Immediacy Behaviors in New Acquaintances
•  Multiple R=.64
•  R Square=.41
•  Variable 1: Spends Time
•  Variable 2: Touches me more
•  Variable 3: less distant than other people
•  Variable 4: engages in more eye contact
•  Variable 5: more direct body position
(Jensen & Andersen, 1979)
Predicting Intimacy for Immediacy
Behaviors
New acquaintances, immediacy assessed with observers
Behaviors
Correlations with Intimacy
Kinesic attentiveness
.70
Facial Animation
.63
Direct Gaze
.61
Facial Pleasantness (smiling)
.60
Overall Multiple R
.78
(Associations were higher for participant immediacy ratings)
Burgoon and Newton, 1991
Immediacy (BII) and Relational Satisfaction in
Long Term Romantic Relationships
Behaviors
Behavior Immediacy
.60
Not spending time
-.52
Greater Physical Distance
-.50
Eye Contact
.50
Touch
.45
Avoiding eye contact
-.43
Spending Time
.43
Direct Body Orientation
.40
Smiling
.29
Source: (Egland, Stelzner, Andersen, & Spitzberg, 1997)
Immediacy (BII) and Perceived Understanding
in Long Term Romantic Relationships
Behaviors
Behavior Immediacy
.55
Not spending time
-.50
Avoiding eye contact
-.48
Direct Body Orientation
.46
Touch
.43
Avoiding eye contact
.51
Spending Time
-.39
Direct Body Orientation
-.37
Smiling
.37
Source: (Egland, Stelzner, Andersen, & Spitzberg, 1997)
Instructional Benefits of Immediacy
•  More positive student–instructor relationships
•  Greater affective learning-toward course, instructor, and major
•  Greater behavior commitment-increased motivation for information
•  Increase cognitive-largely mediated through affect and commitment
Nonverbal Immediacy and Perceived
Teacher Effectiveness (college
communication classes)
Outcome
Multiple R with Immediacy Measures
Effective Communication Practices
.47
Quality of Course Content
.44
Quality of Instructor
.68
Rating of Course
.37
Adopted Recommended Behaviors
.42
Likelihood of tacking a similar course
.43
Cognitive Learning
.12
Source (J. Andersen, 1979)
Cognitive Valence Theory (CVT)
Suggests that Nonverbal Immediacy is moderated by:
1. 
Social and Cultural Norms
2. 
Prior interpersonal relationship
3. 
Reward value of the person (interpersonal valence)
4. 
Environmental/Situational Context
5. 
Psychological/Physical State
6. 
Communication of Psychological traits of reciever
Other Interesting findings on Immediacy
•  Vital Part of Comforting Process
•  Immediacy may be most important in intermediate relational stages
•  High (.67) correlation between immediacy and liking in marriage
•  Numerous studies have replicated and extended instructional communication
findings.
•  Interpersonal warmth is a basic emotion
Some Relevant References
Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D.
Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 543–559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Books.
Andersen, J. F., Anderson, P. A., & Jensen, A. D. (1979). The measurement of nonverbal
immediacy. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 7, 153–180.
Andersen, J. F., & Withrow, J. G. (1981). The impact of lecturer nonverbal expressiveness on
improving mediated instruction. Communication Education, 30, 342–353.
Andersen, P. A. & Andersen, J. F. (2005). The measurement of nonverbal immediacy. In V.
Manusov (Ed). The Sourcebook of Nonverbal Measures: Going Beyond Words, (pp. 113-126).
Erlbaum Publishing.
Andersen, P. A. (1985). Nonverbal immediacy in interpersonal communication. In A. W.
Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 1–36).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Andersen, P. A. (1998). The cognitive valence theory of intimate communication. In T. M.
Palmer & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Progress in Communication Sciences, Volume XIV: Mutual
Influence in Interpersonal Communication: Theory and Research in Cognition, Affect, and
Behavior (pp. 39–72). Stanford, CT: Ablex.
Andersen, P. A., & Andersen, J. F. (1984). The exchange of nonverbal immediacy: A critical
review of dyadic models. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 327–349.
Andersen, P. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (1998a). The bright side of relational communication:
Interpersonal warmth as a social emotion. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook
of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 303–324).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Andersen, P. A., Guerrero, L. K., Buller, D. B., & Jorgensen, P. F. (1998). An empirical comparison
of three theories of nonverbal immediacy exchange. Human Communication Research, 24,
501–535.
Burgoon, J. K., & Newton, D. A. (1991). Applying a social meaning model to relational
message interpretations of conversational involvement: Comparing observer and participant
perspectives. Southern Communication Journal, 66, 96–113.
Cappella, J. N. (1981). Mutual influence in expressive behavior: Adult-adult and infant-adult
dyadic interaction. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 101–132.
Cappella, J. N., & Greene, J. O. (1982). A discrepancy-arousal explanation of mutual
influence in expressive behavior for adult and infant-adult interaction. Communication
Monographs, 49, 89–114.
Egland, K. L., Stelzner, M. A., Andersen, P. A., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1997). Perceived
understanding, nonverbal communication and relational satisfaction. In J. Aitken & L.
Shedletsky (Eds.), Intrapersonal communication processes (pp. 386–395). Annandale, VA: The
Speech Communication Association.
Jensen, A. D., & Andersen, P. A. (1979, May). The relationship among communication traits,
communication behaviors, and interpersonal perception variables. Paper presented at the
annual convention of the International Communication Association, Philadelphia, PA.