Gender Differences in the Nonverbal Expression of Negative Arousal

The purpose of this study was to analyze whether men and women differ in the nonverbal expression of negative arousal. A number of indicators of negative arousal were compared of the nonverbal behavior of JO female and 10 male students, confronted with an unexpected increase in the cognitive load of the communicative task during a videotaped telephone conversation. Based on existing research two hypotheses were put forward: (a) men and women express the same arousal through different channels; (b) men are inclined to be internalizers, whereas women are inclined to be externalizers; as a result, men will express considerably less negative arousal through the same channels of overt, nonverbal behavior, than women. The results of the study offer little support to the first hypothesis, but support the second. Research into gender differences in nonverbal behavior as, for instance, presented in the meta-analysis of Hall (1984), often seems to lead to contradictory results. As will be shown, there is, for instance, no consensus about gender differences concerning adaptor behavior or gesticulation. One possible explanation for these inconsistencies is the fact that, as Vrugt and Kerkstra (1984:29) note, gender differences often were not the main focus of research. As a result the broad range of experimental situations used in this kind of research may have influenced the differences between men and women in opposite directions or may even have neutralized such differences. At the very least this makes existing research difficult to compare. Every situation naturally consists of a multitude of factors which, separately and in interaction with each other, influence the behavior of interactants. One such factor seems to have been overlooked often, even though it possibly explains many of the mixed research results and, reversely, obscures an adequate interpretation of results when ignored. This factor is the degree of arousal which a situation entails and the way in which men and women cope with it. Burgoon, Kelley, Newton and Keely-Dyreson (1989) have remarked that the degree of experienced arousal is one of the basic dimensions which allows for a clear definition and gradual differentiation of social situations. The present study tries to demonstrate that arousal is an important factor to explain certain differences, and changes in these differences, between the nonverbal behavior of men and women. Communications 23 (1998) 1 43 Van Poecke & Van den Bulck The bidimensional theory of arousal expression A good construct of arousal is offered by the approach of Burgoon and associates (Burgoon, Kelley, Newton & Keeley-Dyreson, 1989; Burgoon & Le Poire, 1992; Burgoon, Le Poire, Beutler, Bergan & Engle, 1992). They define arousal as "a very complex phenomenon that can be conceptualized as internal physiological changes, subjective experiences of the actor, and/or external behavioral manifestations" (Burgoon & Le Poire, 1992:473). A lot of stimuli from the social situation can cause a variety of forms of arousal simultaneously, such as "attending to the partner, the act of speaking, cognitive load, affective responses to what has been said or is being said, emotional reactions to the nonverbal cues, and so forth" (Burgoon & Le Poire, 1992:476). Essential in this theory, however, is the fact that arousal is conceptualized from a "two dimensional communication perspective" (Burgoon et al., 1989). In this approach arousal has both an intensity dimension (degree of activation or excitement) and a valenced dimension (euphoric/dysphoric; positive/ negative) which is reflected in, among other factors, the nonverbal behavior of the actor. As far as nonverbal behavior is concerned, Burgoon et al. (1992: 162—163) summarize the key propositions of this theory as follows: Increasing arousal intensity was posited to show curvilinear increases then decreases in attentiveness, immediacy, expressiveness, physical activity, and relaxation. Arousal valence was posited to add indicators of positive or negative affect and performance competence (e.g. decrements in fluency under negative arousal). In this study negative arousal is used as an explanatory factor for certain gender differences in nonverbal behavior. The research of Burgoon and associates showed that apart from a number of 'promising cues', the use of selfadaptors, random body movements (i.e. without aim or purpose), reduced vocal/verbal attentiveness, and reduced fluency are the indicators that distinguish negative from positive arousal. It has to be noted that for object-adaptors relationships found were not as significant as for self-adaptors. The distinction between 'self-adaptors' and Object-adaptors' refers to concepts defined by Eckman and Friesen (1969, 1972; Ekman, 1980). The concept of 'selfadaptors' (or 'body manipulators') refers to non-instrumental self touching, such as scratching or rubbing, nose picking, nail biting, rearranging one's hair, "usually performed with little awareness, and no intention to communicate" (Ekman & Friesen, 1969:86). Self-adaptors are seen as indicators of negative affect, stress, guilt, hostility, anxiety, discomfort, embarrassment, etc. Object adaptors' refer to non-instrumental manipulation of objects, such as 'playing' with a pen during interaction. Ekman and Friesen believe that the interactant usually is more aware of such behavior, the meaning of which is broader than that ascribed to self-adaptors. Object-adaptors are indicators of restlessness (Ekman & Friesen, 1972:364). 44 . Communications 23(1998) 1 Gender Differences in the Nonverbal Expression Gender differences in the expression of arousal: dissimilarities in expressivity or use of different channels? Hall (1984) referred to negative arousal (which she calls 'social discomfort') in her meta-analysis of existing research to explain a number of gender differences in nonverbal behavior. Hall's central proposition is that men and women differ to the extent that they express the same kind of social discomfort through different channels. The same claim is made by Kennedy and Camden (1983), and Vrugt and Kerkstra (1984). Hall believes women to be more 'self conscious' and therefore less relaxed than men, leading among other things to more self-adaptors. Men, on the other hand, are more 'restless' than women, which is expressed in more lower body movement and more use of object-adaptors. Men are also believed to connote negative arousal through more speech disturbances and less fluency, whereas women express it through increased nervous smiling and laughing. Hall offers a number of solutions for the contradiction that men are both more restless and more relaxed. She also proposes an explanation for the general pattern she believes to find, i.e. the fact that sexes only differ in the way in which they connote discomfort. She claims that the nature of the channels men and women select suggests "that the sexes differ in the intensity of their interpersonal orientation and perhaps even in the adaptiveness of their social behavior" (Hall, 1984:132). Furthermore: Women's smiling and laughing, even if nervous, probably serve to smooth awkwardness and heighten openness. Even women's self-conscious self-touching reflects a concern with the other's perception. Men's bodily restlessness and vocal disturbances seem, in contrast, to serve no communicative function but rather to be simply an outlet. They indicate less of a focus on the interpersonal relationship and less interpersonal awareness than women's actions do. (Hall, 1984:132) In contrast to the distinction made by Hall, reference can be made to the gender difference found with regard to the 'extenializer-internalizer' distinction elaborated by Buck and his colleagues for the expressiveness of emotions (for a summary, see Buck, 1979, 1984). The key proposition in this theory is that the larger the overt expression by means of nonverbal behavior, the smaller the physical arousal (externalizers). On the other hand, the smaller the overt expression, the larger the physiological arousal (internalizers). In his overview of research on this distinction Manstead (1991) discusses the different explanations of this phenomenon. He refers to the discharge model, for instance, which can be traced back to Freud's 'hydraulic' conception of emotional energy: Emotion is viewed as a form of energy and as such must follow the basic dynamics of energy conversation. As a person becomes emotionally aroused, this arousal must be discharged either directly, through expression or indirectly through internal pathways. (Notarius, Wemple, Ingraham, Burns & Kollar, 1982:400) Communications 23 (1998) 1 45 Van Poecke & Van den Bulck As far as gender differences are concerned Buck and his colleagues discerned a significant tendency for women to be classified as 'externalizers' and men as 'internalizers', resulting from sex role socialization during childhood and adolescence. The distinction between 'externalizers' and 'internalizers' can be extended from emotional arousal to arousal in general, as Burgoon et al. (1992:161) do explicitly. In view of the remarks made above, this means that one can wonder whether the distinction in the expression of (negative) arousal between men and women has to be seen as (a) a distinction in channels used, or as (b) a distinction in expressiveness. In this study an attempt is made to answer these questions by examining the changes in a number of indicators of negative arousal expressed in the nonverbal behavior of men and women.