Theory of Nonverbal
Communicatio
n
Explanations of Non-verbal Behaviour
Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory of
Non-verbal Communication
Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
believed that non-verbal
communication was an
evolutionary mechanism; in
other words, it is evolved
and adaptive.
All mammals (both human
and non-human) show
emotions through facial
expressions. This behaviour is
universal and, therefore,
evolutionary.
Non-verbal behaviour is
therefore innate – it is
something that we are born
with.
Types of non-verbal
behaviour persist in humans
because that have been
acquired for their value
throughout evolutionary
history.
Darwin’s theory takes the
side of nature in the naturenurture debate because it
argues that non-verbal
behaviour is not learned
from the environment.
Some animals (e.g. lions, bears, dogs) bare their teeth to
signal aggression which is adaptive as the message is
‘Don’t mess with me’ which aids survival by scaring off
potential competitors or predators
Humans and animals open their eyes wide when shocked
Darwin argued that
non-verbal
communication
(NVC) is an adaptive
behaviour:
to see which escape routes are available in a potentially
dangerous situation
Wrinkling the nose and/or gagging could prevent a
human from ingesting toxic substances (the gag reflex is an
automatic physical response which prevents potentially
dangerous substances from being swallowed)
Wrinkling the nose, gagging, baring teeth to show
aggression, scanning the environment: all of these
behaviours are known as serviceable habits - they aid
survival in the animal world (and to a much lesser extent
the human world) but their main function for humans is to
express how they feel e.g. baring teeth means ‘I am really
angry!’
That Nonverbal
Behaviour is
Innate
Evidence That
Non-verbal
Some scientists believe
that nonBehaviour
is
verbal behaviour is innate.
Innate
Children who have been blind
since birth still display the same
facial expressions as sighted
children.
Matsumoto (2008) studied sighted
and blind judo athletes and found
that both groups produced the
same facial expressions in certain
emotional situations.
This supports the evolutionary
Evaluation of Darwin’s evolutionary theory of nonverbal behaviour
Strengths
Research (e.g. Ekman, 1972) has
identified six primary emotions
which appear in all cultures (the
same facial expressions to
communicate each emotion (e.g.
wrinkled nose for disgust) thus
supporting Darwin
Newborn babies can use NVC
from birth e.g. crying, smiling, and
gazing at face-like images which
supports the evolutionary theory as
newborns are unaffected by
environmental and social factors
i.e. they don’t learn to smile or cry
Weaknesses
Cultural differences in NVC do exist (e.g.
the use of personal space between
contact and non-contact cultures as
covered here) which limits the scope of
Darwin’s theory
NVC cannot always be interpreted with
100% accuracy or consistency as there
are individual differences in both the
sending and the receiving of NVC
messages which means that the theory
may lack reliability
Evidence
that
Nonverbal
Behaviour
is Learned
Explanations of Non-verbal Behaviour
Evidence
that Nonverbal
Behaviour is
Learned
Other scientists believe that non-verbal
behaviour is a learned response.
In other words, non-verbal behaviour develops
as a response to observing and imitating people
within one’s own culture (e.g. shaking hands,
kissing on the cheek or bowing).
Yuki et al. (2007) conduced a cross-cultural
study using American and Japanese
participants.
Evidence that Non-verbal
Behaviour is Learned
Yuki et al. (2007)
Each participant was shown
a number of emoticons with
different emotional
expressions and asked to rate
them from very sad to very
happy.
Japanese participants gave
higher ratings to those
emoticons with happier eyes
while American’s rated
happy mouths higher.
Evidence
That Nonverbal
Behaviour is
Learned
Evaluation
of Yuki’s
Yuki’s results suggest a nurture
orientation (rather than a nature one,
as with Darwin), so its positions itself on
the nurture side of the nature-nurture
debate.
Yuki’s study lacks ecological validity
(how true to life the results can be
said to be) because the study used
computer generated faces and not real
ones.
Yuki used university students to test
the hypothesis. Results might have
been different if the study had used
older or younger participants.
0
