Body Language As An Important Aspect Of Communication - Research Paper Example

Body Language As An Important Aspect Of Communication Abstract Interpersonal communication is essential in all forms of human interaction, but more so in communication purposes. Body language has been emphasized as an important aspect in communication and the eye contact is part of this importance. Eye contact is significant because it shows an aspect of attention and interest. The eye contact is essential towards the enhancement of interaction beyond brief contact, and into a sustained social interaction. It creates the aspect of familiarity between the participants who engage in a communication purpose. Emphasis has been put on eye contact as an essential aspect especially in oral communication. This paper will discuss the aspect of the eye contact in interpersonal communication. Introduction Interpersonal communication is essential in all forms of human interaction, given the complex nature of human survival and socialization. Hence, interpersonal communication is defined as pertaining to the process of ‘sending’ and subsequent ‘receiving’ of information between two or more individuals. Accordingly, it is common knowledge that when two or more individuals meet and strike up a conversation, they tend to look at each other. In addition, a common saying portrays that the eyes are ‘a window to one’s soul’, in that they can provide much more information about a person through just gazing into them during interaction (Koerner, 2006). This is influenced by the fact that human beings cannot manipulate the pupil, hence the true presentation of an individual’s inert intentions, meaning or attitude/ affective state. For effective communication to occur, the element of Eye contact is important. Truth be told, there is need for effective eye contact to be able to effectively connect with others during interaction, thereby effectively sharing the information present. The initial (very first) step of communication between individuals is to aptly recognize each other, with this being best effected through eye contact/ recognition (Koerner & Floyd, 2006). Eye contact is therefore vital during interaction for the concerned people to effectively feel, and subsequently share information with each other. Thus, there can be further persuasion of enhanced interaction beyond initial contact, through direct gazing at each other’s eyes. Eye Contact in Human Communication and Interaction Interpersonal communication as portrayed by Koerner (2006) pertains principally to information communicated between the sender(s) on one hand, and the receiver(s) on the other hand. Accordingly, eye contact and behavior is fundamentally founded on the prevailing socio-cultural context(s) of interpersonal communication. As an integral dimension of interpersonal communication, eye contact is critical towards effective communication. When human beings look at each other they not only engage in visualizing each other, but there is also present the aspect of each individual thinking of how the other might/ is visualizing him or her. In terms of cultural contexts, on the one hand, eye contact can be viewed positively where it is utilized towards ascertaining the need for communicating concern and attentiveness. This is in addition to indicating interpersonal interest of concerned parties, in the subject matter at hand. Furthermore, under such contexts direct eye contact portrays an offer of support, as well as the evaluation of responses to existing approaches undertaken (Koerner, 2006). Hence, on the other hand, direct eye contact can be viewed as disrespectful, intimidating, anxiety producing and aggressive, subsequently negatively impacting upon the prevailing communication. On the other hand, direct eye contact in other contexts is viewed as a sign of respect, loyalty and trustworthiness, thus influential in sustaining continued conversation and overall interaction. Such is the power of socio-cultural influences on contextual human interaction, in terms of sustaining direct eye contact or not. thus, not only is eye contact critical in interpersonal communication, but also the lack of eye contact can also be aptly utilized towards evaluating another individual’s responsiveness to the interaction at hand. Thus, the lack of eye contact can be misconstrued to mean the lack of agreement, lack of concern or interest, or the receiver’s pre-occupation on a different subject matter all together (Ivan, 2000). As Pinker (2002) presents, because social interaction is regarded as an interpersonal activity occurring in contexts of prevailing human relationships, both the understanding of, and attentiveness to eye contact are vital. Eye behavior and contact is an imperative medium of communication for both children and adults. Under specific contexts, direct eye contact can substitute verbal communication, portraying the intended meaning i.e. use of eye contact when signaling the waiter in a restaurant. Thus, eye contact and behavior can be able to aptly assist in communicating that which cannot be effectively verbalized, thereby acting as a supplementary channel of communication. This eventually adds credibility to that which is being stated at a given time and prevailing context. In this regard, if the receiver of information seems to have difficulty in understanding the stated information, eye behavior and contact can effectively aid in better understanding of that which is stated. On the flipside, eye contact and behavior may also qualify or even negate the existing verbal message. This is vivid in contexts where the information sender (speaker), may genuinely wish for the information receiver (listener) to believe the stated information, but the portrayed eye messages may act in contradiction. Hence, the message is viewed with caution and/ suspicion, thereby eventually resulting in the information being discounted (Pinker, 2002). Eye Contact in Interpersonal Communication: An Evolutionary Perspective To understand the critical importance of eye contact during human interaction better, it is essential to generally discuss the principles of interpersonal communication, based upon an evolutionary perspective. Accordingly, as Keller man, Lewis and Laird (1989) state, four-core communication principles exist, which underlie the workings/ dynamics of real-life interpersonal communication and hence, cannot be ignored. They pertain to the characteristic nature of interpersonal communication, in terms of communication being: irreversible, inescapable, complicated and contextual in nature. As was noted, direct eye contact may also substitute verbal communication, aptly portraying intended information, as influenced by prevailing contexts. In terms of irreversibility, information that is uttered cannot be taken back, thus its resultant effect(s) inevitably must occur or remain. In relation to eye contact, what the receiver(s) of information internalizes may be quite different from what the sender(s) intended to convey. This is when the accompanying eye contact and facial behavior during a given conversation, does not seem to align with the message being conveyed. Communication is also inescapable given the fact that it is impossible for human beings to actively socialize in the absence of communication. Even the very attempt of not communicating in itself portrays something, in terms of the individual’s affective state and temperament (Kellerman, Lewis & Laird, 1989). As Koerner and Floyd (2006) portend, it is hence vital to take note of the core importance, impact and influence of direct eye contact. This is informed by the fact that what the eyes portray during social interaction, can either effectively augment the message being conveyed, or portray a different notion all together. Thus, not only is communication portrayed through wording (verbalization), but also through controlled body movements/ gestures, body posture, facial expressions and tone of voice etc. it is through such channels of communication that human beings constantly receive and in turn ‘send out’ intended information to others. A critical analogy to this is the fact that individuals are judged by society according to their behavioral character, as opposed to their intent. Interpersonal communication is complicated given the fact that no form of communication is described as being simple. A variety of variables involved in the basic dynamics behind communication exist, and are pertinent towards effective relay and receivership of information under existing social contexts (Koerner & Floyd, 2006). In human communication, human beings do not exchange ideas rather; there is an exchange of symbolic representations that stand for the construed ideas. Essentially, this eventually complicates the overall aspect of communication, given the fact that words (symbols) inherently do not have meaning, but are rather contextualized. This therefore portrays the difficulty endured when aiming to accurately convey information. Accordingly, this brings us to the final principle that pertains to the fact that interpersonal communication is majorly contextual in nature. Informative in this regard is that communication never occurs in isolation, rather there is need for two or more individuals to aptly sustain communication. Thus, for sustainable communication to occur during interaction there is need for sustained eye contact (Koerner, 2006). The nature of the prevailing cultural contexts is influential in communication. This accordingly pertains to all learnt behaviors and pertinent rules that ultimately affect the type of interactions experienced. Influential are the socio-cultural backgrounds of individuals, given that diversity projects differences especially about the issue at hand ‘eye contact’ during communication and interaction. In some cultures, it is considered essential to engage in long and direct eye contact as a sign of trustworthiness, where the contrary is viewed as lack of loyalty and hence trust Conversely, there are those socio-cultural contexts where it is considered rude to engage in long and direct eye contact, especially when interaction is between an elder and younger person. In such case scenarios, this is viewed as being disrespectful and therefore a sign of distrust (Pinker, 2002). Accordingly, from the provisions above, it is fundamental to capture the crucial importance of cultural considerations in terms of effective interpersonal communication and understanding. This is informed by the fact that under various cultural contexts, there is provision for greater misunderstanding during communication, and more so with regard to the presence or absence of direct eye contact. A discussion of the vital importance of eye contact in interpersonal communication from an evolutionary perspective provides an analysis of the sophisticated nature of human communication. Koerner and Floyd (2006) elude that this is in terms of how evolution has and continues affecting human behavior under different social settings. Based upon Darwin’s – Evolution theory (1859) is the influential aspect of Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA). It pertains to the prevailing environmental contexts, which promote specific adaptations at a given period. These potentially are often at odds with the ‘natural’ environmental conditions in which individuals exist. Given that human beings from their ancestral origins have lived within social groupings, the core inter-personal challenges they faced then, have not considerably evolved over the thousands of generations. The evolutionary theory therefore aids in researching vital interpersonal processes present in different contexts of social interaction. In reference is the fact that while human beings have continuously evolved through time, a clear distinction is made on the fact that human eyes have and continue existing as a pair of organs. Vitally, not only are they useful in terms of eyesight but also when communicating, vividly portrayed by the expansion and contraction of the pupils (Koerner & Floyd, 2006). Concerning interpersonal communication, Eckhard Hess (1975) found out that with regard to human eyes, the pupils dilate in contexts where individuals are interested in each other. This is according to the type/ form of information being conveyed, where interesting subject matter results in the eyes expanding (dilating of pupil size). Conversely, when the subject matter at hand is less interesting, the eye pupils tend to decrease in terms of size (Contraction). The contextual nature of daily interaction had fundamentally evolved from past socialization, given the differential aspects of communication in the past vis-à-vis contemporary contexts. This is not only true in terms of human-human eye contact, but also human and non-human contexts. Informing this is the fact that eye contact as a socializing avenue, can necessitate a surprisingly higher quantity of effort to maintain. The contextual nature of human interaction is indicative of the level of eye contact needed during particular interactions. Within the field of interpersonal relationships, people relate to each other by way of four relational models, each at its own time and under unique relationship domains. This is demonstrated by Koerner (2006) through comparison of the relational model across three relationship forms (i.e. friend, acquaintance and mother), and two completely diverse cultures (Singaporean and American). From this, it was derived that in eight uniquely different relationship domains: working, influence, use and distribution, relating, identity, exchange and relationship, the participants utilized all four models to different degrees within the three relationships. Under various conditions, direct and sustained eye contact was measured, displaying differences depending on the relationship domain present. In some, direct eye contact was invariably lower in relation to other contexts where sustained eye contact showcasing increased understanding, attentiveness, concern and responsiveness to the conversation(s) at hand (Koerner, 2006). Kellerman, Lewis and Laird (1989), argued that simple eye contact could make an individual fall in love. This was proved through a study where 48 pairs of opposite sex and unacquainted individuals were asked to gaze over each other’s hands or eyes for about two minutes. Those who gazed into the eyes became more aroused, without any word being uttered. They concluded that eye contact proportionately important in order to enhance individual/ group fondness. This was because when an individual looked directly into the eyes of someone else, there is release of phenyl ethylamine that is crucial in human attraction and love. In order for the chemical to be released by the body, there was need for eye contact for about 85% of the whole interaction (Kellerman, Lewis & Laird, 1989). Tiffany, April and Nathanael on their part, as cited in Spiker (2000) proved that the amount of eye contact between individuals correlates to their positive feelings in a given interaction. This was studied through an experiment at Wal-Mart, where there was recording of individual customers, in terms of the length of eye contact. The result portrayed that human being s tend to sustain longer eye contact when happy or smiling, with the holding moment being when the parties concerned in a given interaction share their feelings of happiness, which result in the smiling expressions (Spiker, 2000). Body language has been emphasized as an important aspect in communication and the eye contact is part of this importance. Eye contact is significant because it shows an aspect of attention and interest. In a conversation, the eye contact helps one to remain attentive to what the speaker is saying and helps the speaker see the reaction of the receiver towards the message that he is passing. When the eye contact is place in a different person or thing other than the people who are conversing or communicating, it is easy to lose direction in the communication cycle because one can be pulled away by other things that happen aside or other thoughts in the mind. The eye contact reminds both the speaker and the listener that they have the responsibility to communicate the message or receive the message effectively and provide a feedback to that effect. Conclusion It is notable that direct eye contact is vital in any socialization contexts between human beings, where there is need for conveyance of information. However, the prevailing contextual nature of a given interaction is influential in the manner in which this is portrayed, as influenced by the socio-cultural dimension. Accordingly, not all of direct and sustained eye contact evolves into a good feeling, sympathy, or persuasion, as would be expected during day-to-day interaction. This is based upon the fact that different socio-cultural contexts project either the necessity or absence of direct and sustained eye contact during a conversation. The contextual nature of the information being conveyed is also influential in whether or not direct eye contact can be achieved and subsequently sustained. A strategy of eye contact is required in order to have positive impact during conveyance of information. There should be eye contact, and that means there should be a moment of pulse during engagement/ interaction. Thus, eye contact is essential towards the enhancement of interaction beyond brief contact, and into a sustained social interaction. This is however pegged on the prevailing socio-cultural, contextual nature of the given social interaction, which will aptly necessitate either direct and sustained eye contact or infrequent but direct eye contact. Influential in this regard is the evolutionary nature of human socialization and interaction, where evolving contextual environments necessitate an adaptation of subsequent communication measures. References Ivan, M. (2000). Masters of Networking: Building Relationships for your pocketbook and soul. Bard Press. Kellerman, J, Lewis, J & Laird, J.D. (1989). Looking and loving: The effects of mutual gaze on feelings of romantic love. Journal of Research in Personality, 23(2): 145-161. Koerner, A.F. (2006). Models of relating—not relationship models: Cognitive representations of relating across interpersonal relationship domains. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23: 629–653. Koerner, A.F & Floyd, K. (2006). Evolutionary Perspectives on Interpersonal Relationships (Chapter 2), in Koerner, A.F & Floyd, K., Meta-theoretical Approaches to Interpersonal Research. London: Cengage. Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. Viking, New York. Spiker, T. (2000). A courtroom drama. Mens Health, 15, 37. Read More