The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The communication of friendly and hostile attitudes by verbal and non‐verbal signals
Abstract
Two experiments are reported here in which Ss were asked to rate videotapes of a performer reading friendly, neutral and hostile messages in a friendly, neutral or hostile non‐verbal style. These messages and non‐verbal styles had previously been presented independently to a separate group of Ss jor rating, in order to obtain an estimate of their individual strengths in terms of six rating scales, and thus permit a matching of verbal (messages) and non‐verbal (styles) cues in the experiment where both types of cues were presented in combination. The results of both experiments indicate that non‐verbal cues had a greater effect on ratings made on 7‐point scales, such as hostile‐friendly, than verbal cues. The magnitude of this greater effect of non‐verbal cues, however, was dependent on the relative strength of non‐verbal as opposed to verbal cues. In the first experiment, both types of cues were approximately equal in strength when ruted alone; here non‐verbal cues accounted for 12.5 times us much variance us verbal cues, and produced 5.7 times as much shift on the ratitig scales. In the second experiment the verbal cues were much stronger than the non‐verbal cues when rated alone. Here the relative effect of non‐verbal cues in the second experiment was diminished; the ratio of non‐verbal : verbal variance was now 1.67:1. When verbal and non‐verbal signals were inconsistent, the performance was rated as insincere, unstable and confusing ‐ which was not found in earlier experiments on the superior‐inferior dimension.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis.
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.111.2.256 · Cited by 1,922
Verbal and Nonverbal Communication of Deception
Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60369-x · Cited by 1,341
Gregory, S. W., & Webster, S. (1996) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.6.1231 · Cited by 312
Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce: A Theoretical Perspective1
Xiao, B., & Benbasat, I. (2011) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/23043494 · Cited by 265
Sources of accuracy in the empathic accuracy paradigm
Hall, J. A., & Schmid Mast, M. (2007) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.438 · Cited by 171
Metadata
- Authors
- Argyle, M., Alkema, F., & Gilmour, R.
- Venue
- European Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1971-07
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 385-402
- ISSN
- 0046-2772 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0992
- OpenAlex
- W2075474814
- Cited by
- 205
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The communication of friendly and hostile attitudes by verbal and non‐verbal signals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ejsp.2420010307
- The paper
- Argyle, M., Alkema, F., & Gilmour, R. (1971). The communication of friendly and hostile attitudes by verbal and non‐verbal signals. European Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010307
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.