Nikolaus Jackob, Thomas Roessing and Thomas Petersen

3Effects of verbal and non-verbal elements in communication

Abstract: Since the turn of the millennium, the contribution of nonverbal cues to the overall effectiveness of rhetorical presentations has gained more and more attention among communication practitioners and scholars: practitioners spread myths about the alleged dominance of (audio-)visual cues in almost every communication-context, while scholars tried to identify the effects facial expressions, gestures and vocal characteristics could exert e.g., in TV-debates, talk shows or televised political conventions. Modern research in this field is based on empirical multi-method approaches, including Real Time Response-Measurement (RTR) and often applying experimental designs. Recent research of this kind demonstrates that the content, the rationale of a presentation, seems to dominate the structure of the audiencés reception – particularly when confronted with lengthier stimuli. Nonverbal cues exert rather a moderating influence: applied adequately, they can strengthen the effectiveness of the content, while they do not change the basal structure of the recipient’s evaluation.

Keywords: Nonverbal cues, Persuasion, Rhetoric, Experimental Research, Real Time Response-Measurement

1Introduction

One of the most popular examples for the seemingly dominant influence of nonverbal cues in persuasive communication is the famous presidential debate between incumbent Vice-President Richard Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy on September 26, 1960 (Maurer and Reinemann 2007). Seen by most experts as being in the lead, Nixon was still recovering from having been hospitalized; he had lost weight, and was pale. Kennedy, by contrast, did not only appear much younger, agile, and sun-tanned, but he focused on the camera and addressed the TV audience directly. Nixon addressed himself to Kennedy most of the time and avoided looking into the camera. Kennedy is believed to have won the debate – and he won the election. Following the debate, surveys suggested that the TV audience favored Kennedy whereas radio listeners favored Nixon. Maurer and Reinemann argue that this moment gave birth to the myth of the dominance of nonverbal elements in persuasive communication (Maurer and Reinemann 2007: 319–320; see also Nagel et al. 2012: 833).

In the same decade, US-psychologist Mehrabian and his colleagues investigated how their subjects formed an opinion on the mood of a given speaker based on audiotape recordings and photographs (Mehrabian and Ferris 1967; Mehrabian and Wiener 1967). Their findings suggest that vocal characteristics coined the subjects’ judgments as long as no images of the speakers were provided. If so, body language seemed to be most influential. According to Maurer and Reinemann, this moment, gave birth to a second myth (Maurer and Reinemann 2007: 320): the so-called communication pyramid, based on the “55–38–7-rule”. Following the pyramid’s basic assumptions, the effectiveness of a persuasive presentation consists of three different factors: 1. body language, which allegedly is responsible for 55 percent of the effects, 2. voice features, which supposedly contribute 38 percent and 3. the presentation’s content – with 7 percent the least important factor. Although these findings did not provide information about the effects of persuasive communication – especially not under real-world conditions –, and although they did not justify a universal formula, the “55–38–7”-myth became very popular among communication-consultants, public relations-experts, and advertising professionals.

Another example for the myths circulating in this field of research is the ‘Dr.-Fox-Experiment’ conducted by Naftulin et al. in 1970. The researchers set out to test whether different groups of recipients will rate a pseudo-academic speech of complete nonsense (“Mathematical Game Theory as Applied to Physician Education”) favorably when presented in a professional and convincing manner. “On the basis of publications supporting the hypothesis that student ratings of educators depend largely on personality variables and not educational content, the authors programmed an actor to teach charismatically and non- substantively on a topic about which he knew nothing.” (Naftulin et al. 1973). Naftulin et al. engaged the actor Michael Fox to play the role of “Dr. Myron L. Fox”, who “looked distinguished and sounded authoritative”. Different groups of recipients (e.g., psychiatrists, psychologists) watched the lecture of Dr. Fox. They came to very favorable conclusions about the presenter and the content – even though every single word of the lecture was nonsense. “The three groups of learners in this study, all of whom had grown up in the academic community and were experienced educators, obviously failed as ‘competent crap detectors’ and were seduced by the style of Dr. Fox’s presentation” (Naftulin et al. 1973). This finding gave birth to the so-called ‘Dr. Fox-effect’. It came to serve as one more proof for the apparent power of nonverbal communication, even though the study had serious theoretical and methodological shortcomings that did not justify drawing conclusions about the effects of nonverbal behavior in (persuasive) communication. Nevertheless, there is an abundance of articles on the World Wide Web that deduce from experiments like those reported above that the content of a speech determines merely a small portion of its effects. Instead, audiovisual cues are said to be decisive (see e.g., articles in the German and English Wikipedia). As will be shown, it is a complex undertaking for research to disenchant widespread myths such as the ‘communication pyramid’ or the ‘Dr. Fox-effect’.

2Methodological background

Modern persuasion research generally concentrates on the question of how to present persuasive appeals most effectively (Stiff and Mongeau 2003: 190). Carl I. Hovland and his colleagues made one of the most famous attempts for measuring the effects of persuasive communication. They ascertained that, above all (alongside the characteristics of the audience and the message of the speech), “observable characteristics of the perceived source of communication” are crucial in determining the effect of persuasive communication (Hovland et al. 1953: 11). Nonverbal stimuli belong to this category of observable elements. It consists of a large group of communication cues which can be differentiated into kinetic (body language), vocal (mode of speech and vocal emphasis), spatial (proximity and surroundings) and haptic (touch) cues (Burgoon et al. 2002; see also Knapp and Hall 2005; Manusov and Patterson 2006; Bente and Krämer 2008). These are sometimes supplemented by chronemical (timing and context) and iconic (for example, symbols, pictures) cues (Cronkhite and Liska 1980: 109).

Psychological experiments are the basis for most of the research in this field – such as the famous experiments conducted by Hovland and colleagues. Experiments are controlled procedures to determine effects, i.e. causality. The “key feature common to all experiments is (…) to deliberately vary something so as to discover what happens to something else later – to discover the effects of presumed causes” (Shadish et al. 2002: 3). Psychological experiments test effects of various causes (independent variables) on thinking, feeling, or behavior (dependent variables) of human beings. Most psychological experiments take place in a laboratory setting that makes it easier to control for all possible interferences (“possible influential independent variables not pertinent to the immediate problem of the investigation”, Kerlinger 1986: 367).

The basic idea of the psychological experiment is to submit individuals to a precisely designed treatment and to observe subsequent changes. In order to determine the effect of the treatment, one must at least compare two conditions with each other (Kantowitz et al. 2005: 51). For example, Carl I. Hovland and Walter Weiss (1951) used two conditions in their famous study on the influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. They presented an identical communication to two groups. In one group, a generally trustworthy character presented the communication. In the other group, it was a generally untrustworthy communicator (Hovland and Weiss 1951: 363).

There is a great variety of experimental research designs. The most important differences between designs concern the number of factors, their characteristics, and the timing of measurements. In their 1951 study, Hovland and Weiss used the factor ‘source credibility’ in two variations: high and low. They measured the reactions of their research subjects using questionnaires, which they administered before the communication, immediately after, and one month after the experiment (Hovland and Weiss 1951: 636–637). Experimental designs that are more complex employ factors with multiple levels, or even multiple factors. Low, medium and high credibility would be an example for three levels of the factor ‘source credibility’. Adding the factor ‘gender of the communicator’ to Hovland and Weiss’ study would make it a multi-factorial experiment.

Every level of a factor or every combination of two or more factors is called ‘experimental condition’. In an experiment investigating the effects of male and female (factor 1) sources of low, medium, and high credibility (factor 2), there are 2 × 3 = 6 experimental conditions. Every experimental condition requires a sample of research subjects. If the stimulus in this example is a film to be presented to a group of research subjects, researchers have to make six versions of the film and organize six separate movie shows (for an overview see Campbell and Stanley 1963; Shadish et al. 2002).

An experiment is the ideal solution in the investigation of causality. However, there are several factors jeopardizing the validity of experimental research. Comparability of the groups of research subjects and constant conditions for all experimental settings are of paramount importance for the internal validity of any psychological experiment. This means the ability of the experiment to test what it is supposed to test. If the experimental groups differ in terms of socio-demographics or other characteristics of the participants, the stimulus alone cannot definitively explain different measurements. The same problem occurs when conditions vary. Other factors relevant to internal validity include testing itself, which can alter people’s behavior or maturation, naturally occurring changes between measurements (Campbell and Stanley 1963: 5). External validity, the generalizability of experimental findings, is innate to all laboratory experiments in the behavioral sciences: People usually do not perceive verbal and non-verbal communication in a controlled laboratory setting. It often remains unclear to what extent findings from laboratory experiments can be generalized to the numerous situations in which human beings usually communicate (Shadish et al. 2002: 83–93).

Various other non-experimental methods either complement or substitute experimental research. In recent years, Real-Time-Response-measurement (RTR) has become popular among researchers in the field. For example, Maier et. al. (2006) used two different RTR systems to investigate audience reactions to televised debates prior to the 2002 general election in Germany. They found both systems to be reliable and valid means to measure the overall (verbal and non-verbal) performance of the candidates as perceived by the audience. However, Reinemann and Maurer (2009) found evidence that RTR-measurement influenced the recall of visual information and the evaluation of a broadcast featuring German politician Angela Merkel in 2005.

Other methods can contribute to verbal and non-verbal communication research as well. However, their share is rather small in comparison to experimental research. For example, it is common to employ survey research to determine the perception and effects of political TV broadcasts, e.g. presidential debates. Yawn & Beatty (2000) used a panel survey to study the presidential debate between Bob Dole and Bill Clinton in 1996. They conclude that their “findings suggest that stylistic considerations were more important to viewers than political considerations when evaluating the candidates.” (Yawn and Beatty 2000: 280) Surveys are an especially important research tool when combined with content analyses. However, it is unusual to employ exclusively surveys or content analyses in verbal or nonverbal communication research. While they are common in political communication research (e.g., in the study of election coverage), these methods are of lesser importance in verbal or nonverbal communication research.

3Theoretical approaches and findings of experimental research

The greatest challenge for empirical research focusing on the effects of nonverbal communication is the complexity and amount of interwoven stimuli. It is not merely the large number of potentially effective ways to use the human voice and body for communicative purposes that makes designing studies that measure persuasive effectiveness in a valid way so challenging. In addition, the constantly changing interplay of arguments and vocal, mimic and gestural stimuli that makes it difficult to uncover the mechanics of effects via empirical (experimental) research. Consequently, empirical persuasion research has amassed a large number of studies since the 1950s. These studies usually focus on single variables such as voice pitch or speaking rate within the framework of small laboratory experiments (for an overview see e.g., Burgoon et al. 1990; Knapp and Hall 2005; Manusov and Patterson 2006). The following central findings of this large body of research are comparatively well confirmed.

First, audience perceptions differ according to the mode of presentation: Presentations including audio- or audiovisual stimuli generally provide audiences with more information. Gestures, facial expressions, and certain vocal characteristics are likely to contribute to audience-impressions that presentations without non-verbal cues do not. People tend to form their judgments based on this additional information. As it particularly refers to the presenter, the respective judgments mostly relate to him or her. Typical impressions formed by non-verbal cues are e.g., the degrees of nervousness, attractiveness or openness of the presenter (Kepplinger 1987; Frey 1999; Hassin and Trope 2000; Kepplinger 2010a). Nonverbal cues provide non-semantic information on the personality or personal background of an individual, on his or her cultural context and his or her emotional state (e.g.,Krauss et al. 1996; Burgoon et al. 1990; Marsh et al. 1997). In addition, audiovisual presentations are not only likely to draw audience attention on the presenter’s characteristics. At the same time, they are likely to divert attention from the presentation’s content (Stiff and Mongeau 2003: 190–195).

Second, research focusing on information processing in the human brain suggests that verbal and nonverbal cues pass through different routes. There are different mechanisms that process these cues: Visual information is processed by the brain with a higher priority (Way and Masters 1996: 56), and cerebral handling of visual information is much faster than the handling of verbal information. Facial expressions, for example, need only a fractional amount of the time verbal information needs to be processed (Libet 1991; Fiske and Taylor 2008: 72). Humans are thus able to form judgments within some milliseconds on strangers based on the latters’ nonverbal behavior (Frey 1999). According to neuroscience, visual information is sent directly to the amygdala, an area of the brain, which has evolved prior to other parts – without being processed consciously (Way and Masters 1996; Barry 2005; Nagel, Maurer and Reinemann 2012: 836). Interestingly, these older parts of the human brain are responsible for affective experience. This might serve as explanation for the fact, that visual information about the communicator seems to evoke rather emotional than rational reactions: “Such special processing mechanisms at the neural level help explain the close ties between emotion and nonverbal facial displays at the behavioral level. […] If the verbal medium is the domain of the cognition, then the nonverbal medium is the domain of emotion.” (Way and Masters 1996: 56).

Third, these findings of neuroscience correspond with modern Dual-Processing-Models of information processing such as the Elaboration-Likelihood-Model (ELM) or the Heuristic-Systematic-Model (HSM) (Chaiken 1980; Chaiken and Eagly 1983; Petty and Cacioppo 1986; Booth-Butterfield and Welbourne 2002; Todorov et al. 2002). Both models explain the different patterns of effects produced by different (verbal vs. nonverbal) modes of presentations with different modes of information processing. According to these models, two modes of persuasion processing exist, depending on the degree of ego-involvement prevailing among the audience. People with high ego-involvement are likely to engage in systematic thinking. They listen to the presentations’ content carefully and tend to elaborate the arguments prudently while focusing on the quality of communication content. In this high-involvement situation, nonverbal cues are less important as factors facilitating persuasion (central/systematic route of persuasion). On the other hand, recipients who lack interest, information, and – most importantly – involvement, are likely to process information superficially. They do not invest any great effort in the elaboration of the presentationsʼ content. In this low-involvement situation, the quality of arguments is less important. Recipients tend to rely on source characteristics (e.g., the presenter’s attractiveness) or characteristics of the source’s nonverbal performance (e.g., facial expressions or body language). Nonverbal cues on this peripheral/heuristic route (as opposed to the central/systematic route) can be sources of persuasion effects.

Within the framework of the Dual-Processing-Models, the intensity of cognitive elaboration while processing information plays an important role. Several factors are likely to influence elaboration likelihood. When the presented topic is not very relevant for the specific audience, when recipients have a low need for cognition, when there are distracting factors (e.g., audiovisual presentation), or when recipients do not have relevant background knowledge at their disposal, it is likely that information will be processed on the peripheral/ heuristic route of persuasion. According to neuroscience, this is the perfect situation for nonverbal cues to become influential because they need a lesser amount of elaboration to be processed. By contrast, when a topic “is personally relevant to a receiver, the receiver is generally predisposed to engage in careful thinking, the receiver has extensive relevant background knowledge, and the receiver is undistracted, elaboration will presumably be high – and the central route of persuasion will be engaged” (O’Keefe 2008: 1476). Hence, when discussing the effects of nonverbal cues in communication, it is crucial to keep in mind the various factors possibly influencing elaboration likelihood.

Fourth, two larger bodies of research can be distinguished – research focusing on vocal cues and research focusing on body language. With respect to vocal cues, the following factors seem to influence communication effectiveness: speaking rate, voice pitch/modulation, and speaking fluency. Content presented fluently, smoothly and coherently leads to more favorable evaluations of the presenter’s competence and credibility (e.g., Erickson et al. 1978; Newcombe and Arnkoff 1979). The same applies for a certain degree of vocal variability, variations in volume and a slightly higher speed/speaking rate (Mehrabian and Williams 1969; Pearce and Conklin 1971; Pearce and Brommel 1972; Apple et al. 1979; Gélinas-Chebat and Chebat 1992; Gregory and Gallagher 2002). Overall, speaking too quietly, too monotonously, too stagnantly, and too slowly is very likely to impair the persuasiveness of one’s communication. With respect to body language, research indicated that certain forms of facial and gestural activity are likely to trigger positive evaluations of the communicator and the message. A certain body language can evoke more favorable perceptions of the presenter’s credibility and the persuasiveness of his or her presentation (for an overview see Kepplinger 1987; Burgoon et al. 1990; Marsh et al. 1997; Nagel et al. 2012). Facial expressions and gestures generally enhance communication by providing additional information that is not accessible for recipients when processing written messages only (Rauscher et al. 1996; Krauss 1998; Wesp et al. 2001): e.g., information about the presenter’s self-assuredness, physical attractiveness, or nervousness (Kepplinger 1987; Frey 1999; Kepplinger 2010a).

Since it depends on whether a speaker applies nonverbal cues adequately in a given rhetorical setting, whether they are suitable for the presentation’s topic, the recipients’ mood etc., it is not efficient to report all possible effects of different facial expressions, gestures, or postures. However, there are certain forms of body language and vocal performance that are indeed likely to enhance the persuasiveness of presentations. For example, a presenter’s gaze (especially his or her eye contact with the audience) is likely to evoke impressions of sympathy or trustworthiness as well as dominance or intimidation (Mehrabian and Williams 1969; Thayer 1969; Burgoon, Dunbar and Segrin 2002). People tend to rate smiling presenters more favorably – with potentially positive effects on the persuasiveness of the latters’ messages (Imada and Hakel 1977). Certain gestures are likely to evoke impressions of self-assuredness – presenters using gestures are assumed to be more convincing in general (Mehrabian and Williams 1969; Edinger and Patterson 1983; Burgoon, Dunbar and Segrin 2002). Furthermore, the abstention from gestures leads to a less fluent and straightforward speech production and to the impression of a less vivid and convincing presentation (Rauscher, Krauss and Chen 1996; Krauss 1998; Krauss and Hadar 1999). In general, it seems that presentations are most persuasive when the speaker combines vocal and visual cues in a meaningful and adequate manner and when he or she integrates them well in the overall performance. Recipients seem to judge such integrated verbal-plus-nonverbal presentations generally as more favorable and more persuasive (Burgoon, Birk and Pfau 1990: 163–164).

4Theoretical and methodological shortcomings of related research

One of the reasons why it is not efficient to report a large number of singular findings from experimental research is rooted in the nature of (audiovisual) persuasive communication. Persuasive performances consist of an amalgam of arguments, appeals, characteristics of the presenter’s voice, the way he or she uses his or her voice for persuasive purposes, characteristics of the presenter’s bodily appearance, the way the body is used for persuasive purposes, and many more aspects. Researchers need to consider a large number of variables when trying to determine the effect of persuasive communication. It is highly unlikely that there will ever be a universal formula explaining how persuasive communication works and which of its elements are most influential. For researchers, the seemingly endless range of ways in which persuasive stimuli can combine makes it difficult to develop empirical designs that provide meaningful and generalizable findings. This is the reason why most empirical studies investigating the role of nonverbal cues in persuasive communication suffer from serious methodological problems.

First, most (older) studies are rather narrow in focus, piecemeal experiments, and in the majority of cases there is no attempt to link the pieces together. Typically, experimental studies manipulate a single nonverbal cue, e.g., position of the arms or the speed of a presentation. Burgoon et al. (1990: 141) argue that “(…) nonverbal cues may not be particularly meaningful or potent until combined into sets of related behaviors (…)”. Consequently, it is necessary to design studies that manipulate a larger number of nonverbal cues simultaneously – this would be far more meaningful than “(…) manipulating a single cue in isolation.” (Marsh, Hart-O’Rourke and Julka 1997: 564). Hence, there is a blooming field of knowledge on the separate effects of single cues. In contrast, investigations concerning the composite effects of several verbal and nonverbal elements are rare. These, however, are very much needed in order to produce meaningful and valid findings (see Nagel, Maurer and Reinemann 2012: 837).

Second, many studies suffer from comparatively “artificial manipulations” (Burgoon, Birk and Pfau 1990: 141). Hence, there is reasonable doubt when it comes to their external validity. Very few studies systematically investigate the effectiveness of nonverbal cues in persuasive communication based on realistic stimulus material – offering insights into the functioning of everyday-life persuasion (see e.g., studies in the field of political communication; Nagel, Maurer and Reinemann 2012).

Third, because of the fact, that there are few studies investigating the persuasive amalgam consisting of verbal, vocal, and visual cues, research has not yet provided significant insight into the relative potency of verbal, vocal, and visual cues or has investigated the interplay between them: “(…) the examination of isolated cues prevented relative comparisons among cues as to their importance. We do not know, for example, whether speaking tempo or gestural animation contributes more to persuasive impact (…)” (Burgoon et al. 1990: 141; see also Burgoon, Dunbar and Segrin 2002: 462–463). Against this background, the universal claim of the so-called communication pyramid and the inherent “55–38–7”-rule is misleading. Apart from few studies (which are reported in the next section of this chapter), there is no empirical data demonstrating which verbal, vocal, or visual cue exerts the strongest influence and/or which combination of cues exerts the strongest overall effect (Stiff and Mongeau 2003: 190; Jackob et al. 2011; Nagel et al. 2012). In fact, there is still no empirical confirmation for a universal hierarchy of effectiveness, attributing stronger effects to nonverbal cues.

5Answers of current research

Jackob et al. (2011) and Nagel et al. (2012) address the problems and shortcomings mentioned above. Both teams of researchers conducted studies meeting three important requirements pointed out by Burgoon et al. (1990) and Marsh et al. (1997). First, the studies focused on realistic combinations of nonverbal stimuli, specifically on the variation of vocal characteristics, facial expressions, and bodily gestures simultaneously. Second, the researchers conducted their studies within comparatively naturalistic settings employing an integrated ‘verbal-plus-nonverbal’ persuasive presentation. Third, they employed multi-method-measurements able to uncover differences in the overall persuasiveness of the presentations as well as specific differences in the contribution of certain nonverbal stimuli to overall persuasiveness. Jackob et al. (2011) combined a representative survey, a split-ballot experiment, laboratory experiments and RTR-measurement in order to ascertain the effects of a parliamentary speech. Nagel et al. (2012) combined RTR-measurement and content analysis for measuring the effects of verbal and nonverbal cues presented during the television debates between German chancellor Schröder and his challenger Merkel in 2005. With respect to the relative effects of verbal and nonverbal cues, both research groups came to similar conclusions.

Using a representative survey, Jackob et al. (2011) identified a paragraph of a speech focusing on the benefits of globalization as especially persuasive compared to other stimuli. They subsequently used this passage in a laboratory experiment. A professional speaker presented three different performances of the text: 1. no gestures/no variances in facial expressions plus no variance in vocal delivery; 2. no gestures/no variances in facial expressions plus explicit variances in vocal delivery; 3. explicit variances in gestures/ facial expressions plus explicit variances in vocal delivery. Jackob and his colleagues recorded the performances in a film studio. Then they presented all three films to independent samples of subjects that had to a) evaluate continuously the persuasiveness of the presentation via RTR-measurement and b) to fill out a questionnaire after confrontation with the stimulus. A second follow-up experiment was conducted using the first and second condition of the first experiment – this time, two groups of subjects had to listen to audio-only presentation of both stimuli, no visual cues were provided (measurement was the same as in the first experiment).

Both experiments show that the speaker’s performance, as well as certain qualities of the speech can profit from vocal emphasis as well as from facial expressions and gestures. Audiences evaluated presentations with explicit vocal emphasis and/ or with both, explicit vocal emphasis and explicit facial expressions/ gestures more favorable in certain points. Subjects perceived the presentations as more vivid and lively; to them the presenter appeared to be more powerful and more self-assured. However, vocal and visual support did not lead to more positive evaluations of other presentations – or characteristics of the presenter (e.g., accuracy, authenticity, and thoroughness). Certain nonverbal cues, especially facial expressions and gestures, led the subjects to rate the speech less favorably. RTR-measurement indicates that the subjects rated speeches presented with the aid of vocal emphasis and supported by body language slightly more favorably. However, the graphs indicating the overall persuasiveness of the speech did not vary in curve shape – the response pattern was the same across all experimental conditions. The graphs only varied in the mean value, indicating that the content of the presentation was more or less responsible for determining whether certain parts of the speech were perceived to be relatively more or less persuasive than others. In sum, the content determined the overall pattern of persuasive effects. Nonverbal techniques, however, were able to enhance existing effects of the presentations’ content.

Furthermore, subjects rated the audio-only versions (second experiment) more favorably than the audiovisual versions (first experiment), providing further evidence that there is no general primacy of the audiovisual presentations over other forms of delivery. Hence, the persuasive power of a presentation’s content can benefit from an audience not distracted by visual impressions. In line with the dual processing models (ELM, HSM) presentations focusing on the textual or the audio channel can be more convincing under certain circumstances because they are more likely to be processed via central/ systematic routes of persuasion. Thus, the absence of visual impressions might lead to more favorable evaluations of the persuasive message itself.

Nagel et al. (2012) focused on the following research question: “Which channel of audio-visual messages (verbal, visual, or vocal) affects viewer’s impressions of political candidates most?” (Nagel et al. 2012: 837). On the day of the TV-debate in 2005, Nagel and colleagues invited subjects to watch the debate between the candidates for chancellorship in Germany. Nagel et al. (2012) measured the overall impressions of the two candidates’ performances continuously during reception via RTR-measurement and compared the graphs with the data of content analyses. The content analyses measured verbal, vocal, and visual aspects of Schröder’s and Merkel’s performances. By using this design, the authors were able to analyze the effects of certain rhetorical strategies, arguments, vocal emphasize, gestures and facial expressions on a second-by-second basis. In sum, their findings indicate that verbal characteristics (content) are more important in determining the effects of persuasive communication than nonverbal characteristics (vocal and visual cues). For example, certain emotional appeals, the use of commonplaces, the use of evidence, emphasizing certain political issues, playing the role of the incumbent or the challenger, and a rather negative or positive tone shaped audience impressions much more than nonverbal cues. The latter only slightly influenced audience evaluations. Merkel, for example, benefited from gazing into the camera and speaking with a higher frequency. Nagel et al. conclude (2012: 846): “Indeed, the most striking finding of our study is that for both of the candidates, verbal message elements had by far the strongest impact on viewers’ impressions.”

6Conclusions

The findings of recent studies such as the studies of Jackob et al. (2011) and Nagel et al. (2012) indicate that there is in fact no such thing as a universal hierarchy of effectiveness claimed by the communication pyramid or the “55–38–7”-rule. Different forms of presentation generally engage different information processing and evaluation pathways in the subjects’ brains. Subjects perceive messages differently depending on composition, context and audience characteristics. In addition, messages exert their influence differently according to the situational composition of relevant factors. Presentations armed with nonverbal techniques are not per se more effective than others are. If the claims of the communication pyramid or the “55–38–7”-rule were correct, content itself would have had exerted a much less significant influence over the general pattern of effects in both lines of research presented above. With regard to the data presented by Jackob et al. (2011), the nonverbally armed speeches would not only have had been more persuasive in general but the RTR-findings would have had produced significantly different effects patterns. In particular, the comparative analysis of the two experiments (audiovisual vs. audio only) would have had revealed more substantial differences. With regard to the data presented by Nagel et al. (2012), nonverbal elements such as gaze, smile, gestures, as well as the intensity of voice, its pitch and the speech rate would have had exerted a dominant influence on impression formation – but the opposite was the case: the audience predominantly relied on content factors (verbal cues).

There is one conclusion from classical rhetoric that turns out to be the most important finding in the field of modern persuasion research as well: “Persuasive communication can only productively be observed and analyzed in the correct setting and context. Thus any attempts to come up with simple, universal recipes for successful and effective presentations are doomed to failure – there are no simple, universal explanations for responses to or the effects of persuasive communication.” (Jackob et al. 2011: 265). Whether or not an audience finds a speech convincing is not dependent on the composition of auditory and visual stimuli alone. Attributing a rudimentary 5, 7 or 10 percent share of the overall persuasive effect of a persuasive presentation to its content is a more than unrealistic simplification. This, however, does not imply that the verbal channel (the content of persuasive communication) is solely responsible for dictating its effects – such a claim would be equally simplistic and unrealistic. The content of a persuasive presentation has a great and most probably crucial influence on at least the structure of its effect. Similar curve shapes of the graphs measuring the persuasiveness of the presentations are a clear indication for this reading of the findings reported above. Acoustical and visual elements, as long as they are not completely inappropriate, contradictory or lacking credibility, can enhance existing effects of the presentation’s content. They can affect positively or negatively how people perceive the arguments and the presenter. They can lessen the effect of weaker arguments and add power to stronger ones. The Elaboration-Likelihood-Model and the Heuristic-Systematic-Model support this interpretation of the data. Both state that there might be a trade-off between different modes of stimulus reception and evaluation.

References

Apple, William, Lynn A. Streeter & Robert M. Krauss. 1979. Effects of Pitch and Speech Rate on personal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37. 715–727.

Barry, Ann M. 2005. Perception Theory. In Kenneth L. Smith, Sandra Moriarty, Gretchen Barbatsis & Keith Kenney (eds.), Handbook of Visual Communication: Theory, methods, and media, 45–62. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.

Bente, Gary & Nicole C. Krämer. 2008. Nonverbal Signals, Effects of. In Wolfgang Donsbach (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication, Vol. 7, 3334–3339. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Bettinghaus, Erwin & Michael J. Cody. 1994. Persuasive Communication. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Booth-Butterfield, Steve & Jennifer Welbourne. 2002. The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Its Impact on Persuasion Theory and Research. In James Price Dillard & Michael Pfau (eds.), The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice, 155–173. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Burgoon, Judee K., Thomas Birk & Michael Pfau. 1990. Nonverbal Behaviors, Persuasion, and Credibility. Human Communication Research 17. 140–169.

Burgoon, Judee K., Norah E. Dunba & Chris Segrin. 2002. Nonverbal Influence. In James Price Dillard and Michael Pfau (eds.), The Persuasion Handbook. Developments in Theory and Practice, 445–473. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Campbell, Donald T. & Julian C. Stanley. 1963. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Chaiken, Shelly. 1980. Heuristic versus Systematic Processing and the Use of Source versus Message Cues in Persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39. 752–766.

Chaiken, Shelly & Alice Eagly. 1983. Communication Modality as a Determinant of Persuasion: The Role of Communicator Salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45. 241–256.

Cronkhite, Gary & Jo R. Liska. 1980. The Judgment of Communicant Acceptability. In Michael E. Roloff & Gerald R. Miller (eds.), Persuasion: New Directions in Theory and Research, 101–139. Beverly Hills/London: Sage.

Edinger, Joyce A. & Miles L. Patterson. 1983. Nonverbal Involvement and Social Control. Psychological Bulletin 93. 30–56.

Erickson, Bonnie, Allan E. Lind, Bruce C. Johnson & William M. O’Barr. 1978. Speech Style and Impression Formation in a Court Setting. The Effects of “Powerful” and “Powerless” Speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 14. 266–279.

Fiske, Susan T. & Shelly E. Taylor. 2008. Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Frey, Siegfried. 1999. Die Macht des Bildes. Der Einfluss der nonverbalen Kommunikation auf Kultur und Politik. Bern: Huber.

Gélinas-Chebat, Claire & Jean-Charles Chebat. 1992. Effect of Two Voice Characteristics on the Attitudes toward Advertising Messages. Journal of Social Psychology 132. 447–459.

Gregory, Stanford W. & Timothy J. Gallagher. 2002. Spectral Analysis of Candidates’ Nonverbal Vocal Communication: Predicting U.S. Presidential Election Outcomes. Social Psychology Quarterly 65. 298–308.

Hassin, Ran & Yaacov Trope. 2000. Facing Faces: Studies on the Cognitive Aspects of Physiognomy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78. 837–852.

Hosman, Lawrence A. 2002. Language and Persuasion. In James Price Dillard & Michael Pfau (eds.), The Persuasion Handbook. Developments in Theory and Practice, 371–390. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Hovland, Carl I. & Walter Weiss. 1951. The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly 15. 635.

Hovland, Carl I., Irving Janis & Harold Kelly. 1953. Communication and Persuasion. New Haven: Princeton University Press.

Imada, Andrew S. & Milton D. Hakel. 1977. Influence of Nonverbal Communication and Rater Proximity on Impressions and Decisions in Simulated Employment Interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology 62. 295–300.

Jackob, Nikolaus, Thomas Roessing & Thomas Petersen. 2011. The Effects of Verbal and Nonverbal Elements in Persuasive Communication: Findings from Two Multi-Method Experiments. Communications 36. 245–271.

Kantowitz, Barry H., Henry L. Roediger & David G. Elmes. 2005. Experimental Psychology: Understanding Psychological Research. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Kepplinger, Hans Mathias. 1987. Darstellungseffekte. Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Wirkung von Pressefotos und Fernsehfilmen. Freiburg & Munich: Alber.

Kepplinger, Hans Mathias. 2010. Nonverbale Medienkommunikation. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.

Kerlinger, Fred N. 1986. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: CBS.

Knapp, Mark L. & Judith A. Hall. 2005. Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Krauss, Robert M. 1998. Why Do We Gesture When We Speak? Current Directions in Psychological Science 7. 54–59.

Krauss, Robert M., Yihsin Chen & Purnima Chawla. 1996. Nonverbal Behavior and Nonverbal Communication: What Do Conversational Hand Gestures Tell Us? In Mark P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 389–450. San Diego: Academic Press.

Krauss, Robert M. & Uri Hadar. 1999. The Role of Speech-Related Arm/Hand Gestures in Word Retrieval. In Ruth Campbell & Lynn S. Messing (eds.), Gesture, Speech, and Sign, 93–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Libet, Benjamin. 1991. Concious vs. Neural Time. Nature 352(6330). 27–28.

Maier, Jürgen, Marcus Maurer, Carsten Reinemann & Thorsten Faas. 2006. Reliability and Validity of Real-Time Response Measurement: a Comparison of Two Studies of a Televised Debate in Germany. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 19. 53–73.

Manusov, Valerie & Miles L. Patterson (eds.). 2006. Handbook of Nonverbal Communication. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Marsh, Kerry L., Dawn Hart-O’Rourke & Deana L. Julka. 1997. The Persuasive Effects of Verbal and Nonverbal Information in a Context of Value Relevance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23. 563–579.

Maurer, Marcus & Carsten Reinemann. 2007. TV-Duelle als Instrument der Wahlkampfkommunikation: Mythen und Fakten. In Nikolaus Jackob (ed.), Wahlkämpfe in Deutschland. Fallstudien zur Wahlkampfkommunikation 1912–2005, 317–331. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.

Mehrabian, Albert & Susan R. Ferris. 1967. Inferences of Attitudes from Nonverbal Communication in two Channels. Journal of Consulting Psychology 31. 248–258.

Mehrabian, Albert & Morton Wiener. 1967. Decoding of Inconsistent Communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6. 109–115.

Mehrabian, Albert & Martin Williams. 1969. Nonverbal Concomitants of Perceived and Intended Persuasiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 13. 37–58.

Naftulin, Donald H., John E. Ware & Frank A. Donnelly. 1973. The Doctor Fox Lecture: A Paradigm of Educational Seduction. Journal of Medical Education 48. 630–635.

Nagel, Frederike, Marcus Maurer & Carsten Reinemann. 2012. Is there a Visual Dominance in Political Communication? How Verbal, Visual, and Vocal Communication Shape Viewerʼs Impressions of Political Candidates. Journal of Communication 62. 833–850.

Newcombe, Nora & Diane B. Arnkoff. 1979. Effects of speech style and sex of speaker on person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37. 1293–1303.

O’Keefe, Daniel J. 2008. Elaboration Likelihood Model. In Wolfgang Donsbach (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication, Vol. 4, 1475–1480. Oxford: Blackwell.

Pearce, W. Barnett & Forrest Conklin. 1971. Nonverbal Vocalic Communication and Perceptions of a Speaker. Speech Monographs 38. 235–241.

Pearce, W. Barnett & Bernard J. Brommel. 1972. Vocalic Communication and Persuasion. Quarterly Journal of Speech 58. 298–306.

Petty, Richard & John T. Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and Persuasion: The Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer.

Rauscher, Frances H., Robert M. Krauss & Yihsiu Chen. 1996. Gesture, Speech, and Lexical Access: The Role of Lexical Movements in Speech Production. Psychological Science 7. 226–231.

Reinemann, Carsten & Marcus Maurer. 2009. Is RTR Biased Towards Verbal Message Components? An Experimental Test of the External Validity of RTR Measurements. In Jürgen Maier, Michaela Maier, Marcus Maurer, Carsten Reinemann & Vincent Meyer (eds.), Real-time response measurement in the social sciences. Methodological perspectives and applications, 27–44. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Shadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook & Donald T. Campbell. 2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Stiff, James B. & Paul A. Mongeau. 2003. Persuasive Communication. New York/London: Guildford.

Thayer, Stephen. 1969. The Effect of Interpersonal Looking Duration on Dominance Judgements. Journal of Social Psychology 79. 285–286.

Todorov, Alexander, Shelly Chaiken & Marlone D. Henderson. 2002. The Heuristic-Systematic Model of Social Information Processing. In James Price Dillard and Michael Pfau (eds.), The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice, 175–194. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Way, Baldwin M. & Roger D. Masters. 1996. Emotion and Cognition in Political Information-Processing. Journal of Communication 46. 48–65.

Wesp, Richard, Jennifer Hesse, Donna Keutmann & Karen Wheaton. 2001. Gestures Maintain Spatial Imagery. American Journal of Psychology 114. 591–600.

Yawn, Mike & Bob Beatty. 2000. Debate-Induced Opinion Change: What Matters? American Politics Research 28. 270–285.