Literature Review Lilly Manns HU2810 Katie Snyder Instructor 11/18/2012

How does gender-specific nonverbal behavior affect an audiences perspective of a speaker? When looking at the respective fields of study in Gender, Leadership and Nonverbal behavior, new connections emerge that are influential to ordinary life and relationships. The literature written about these diverse subjects includes both studies and commentary that explore connections between the three distinct fields. These ideas and literature will be organized and discussed in this literature review. Gender studies focuses primarily on gender identity and gendered representation, while the study of nonverbal behavior looks at how visual behaviors are central to communication. Finally, leadership studies examine what characteristics are seen as powerful by audiences. Putting these study fields together begs the question; what kinds of nonverbal behavior are most influential to an audience, when taking gender identity of both the audience and speaker into account? However, the literature in the applicable areas varies greatly, with differing methods, implications and conclusions. To more effectively study the interaction of gender, nonverbal behavior and leadership, a more concrete and understood standard must be established.

Differing focuses While there are many sources for Gender, nonverbal behavior, or leadership, only in a few instances were all three concepts are combined and analyzed in the context of each other. Even then, there are serious flaws within this literature, most notably with the varying and confusing terms used for leadership. Leadership (Riggio), status (Hall), power (Carney), social rank (Carney) and influence (Carli) are all used ambiguously in general reference to how a person is perceived, in terms

of either leadership qualities or social rank, by their intended audience. These different terms have varying qualities that can be interpreted in widely different ways by both researchers and subjects, which may influence results. In any case, comparing studies that utilize such differing terminology is difficult. In addition, findings vary from study to study. In some cases, the act of gazing, looking at someone for an extended period of time, was associated with weak and lower status individuals; in others, high-status and powerful people gaze more (Hall 1082). Disparities between findings could be attributed to a combination of chronological gaps between studies (the earliest source analyzed was written in 1951, the latest was accessed in 2012). Presumably, societal expectations for gender and influence, or simple differences in methodology in various studies may have changed radically. Differences in basic understandings of topics on behalf of either the subjects or researchers themselves can have profound impacts on findings. Gaps in research are prevalent in the literature. For instance, the link between nonverbal behavior and influence is often studied in the context of certain behaviors. Other behaviors, such as touching, nodding, and hand gestures, have been studied remarkably little compared with other behaviors, such as smiling (Hall 1082). As these behaviors can vary between genders as well as social rank, this is an obvious oversight within research. With different focuses, angles, and approaches, it comes as no surprise that studies can have such widely differing conclusions.

Methods and Methodology I came across three distinct types of sources: analytical studies testing hypotheses with reports on findings, literature reviews on the subjects of gender, nonverbal behavior, and/or leadership, and

studies relating real-life experiences of subjects and extracting ideas and conclusions from those accounts. This difference in data-gathering makes it difficult to arrive at concrete conclusions, as it is impractical to compare differing types of data. However, all methods have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the focus of the particular research. For analytical studies, often the boundaries and categorizations were tightly defined; this assisted the researchers in their studies. One such study was done by Carli et al, and involved complex mathematical calculations to arrive at conclusions and reduce error. This first-hand data is helpful, but only when the studies scopes were well-defined and the contexts understood. These statistical studies are difficult to compare when each study has different parameters. Literature reviews on the subjects of gender, nonverbal behavior, and leadership gathered information in the particular fields of study and presented in a comprehensive manner. However, literature reviews are secondary sources, and information can be taken out of context. In addition, literature reviews offer no new information. Finally, a few sources utilized interviews with subjects about their experiences with gender, leadership, and/or nonverbal behavior. This method only gathers information about certain peoples experiences, and as such, generalizations from these sources are difficult to apply elsewhere. Problems arise when attempting to compare these sources data types, as their conclusions and methods are inherently different and as such, are incomparable. This difficulty arises out of the different directions, focuses and goals of both the scholars and researchers responsible for the sources.

Nonverbal Behavior and Leadership in Gender Context Nonverbal communication is difficult to define; some definitions in use exclude certian forms of communication behavior, and categorization is difficult for verbal and nonverbal signal combinations

(Anderson i-ix). The most comprehensive definition of nonverbal behavior found was the definition in Peter Andersons textbook, Nonverbal Communication: Forms and Functions. According to Anderson, nonverbal communication includes communication that is analogic, nonlinguistic and typically governed by the right brain hemisphere. This behavior is not universal between genders; males and females utilize nonverbal behavior in different ways (Cashdan 210-229). In the gender studies area, it is widely understood that gender identity and physical sex are separate entities; that is, the social and biological aspects of male and female do not always go hand-inhand. (Mayo) Traditional sex roles in western culture rely on the two being synonymous, which creates confusion and resistance when dissonance is present (Carney 104). American leadership roles are often characterized as individualistic, aggressive and dominant, which are typical masculine qualities in western culture (Hall 20). Males and females approach leadership in different ways; for instance, females are more engaged in community involvement and understanding rather than the traditional leadership characteristics of individualism and planning (Stetzer 93). Most sources agree that the gender-difference in the perception of women in power has much to do with the lower status of women in western culture (Carli 1031). It is hypothesized that because males are higher-ranked, their displays of dominance and power are more effective in establishing influence over an audience, whereas submissiveness is preferred in females, based on western culture traditional sex roles. According to research done by Elizabeth Cashdan, when females act submissive and use submissive nonverbal behavior and males use dominant nonverbal behavior, these actions mesh well with societal and cultural expectations. Another study found that using confident, competent behavior is more positively influential for an audience (Carli 1039), for both female and male speakers; more so than either dominant (for male

speakers, as expected) or submissive (for female speakers, as expected) actions. Competent behaviors conveyed cooperation, experience and capability, which were accepted readily by audiences. After analyzing the studys results, the researchers found that dominant behavior interferes with, rather than establishes, influence. Dominance conveys threat and power, which the researchers thought was viewed negatively by the audience or group. Behaviors that do little to help a group attain goals were not effective at influencing an audience. This same study found that certain behaviors were viewed and accepted more or less favorably by certain gendered audiences. Dominant behaviors were viewed less favorably by all audiences for both male and female speakers. However, women speakers had to walk a fine line between likability and competence when attempting to be influential; men did not have to appear likable to be influential. To satisfy societys expectations of a submissive, agreeable female, women had to appear likeable, while maintaining their competence. These two factors had independent effects on the influence of the speakers, and male audiences were more inclined to be influenced by a competent woman speaker when she was also sociable; women speakers who were only competent were viewed less favorably. This was likely because of the dissonance between the audiences behavioral expectations and the speakers actual behavior. Overall, according to this study, speakers utilizing competent behavior can greatly influence an audience, no matter what gender they are; however, women, because of social traditions, are the most influential when they balance likability and social convention with competence.

However, a conflicting study by Carney, Hall and LeBeau, sought to establish a link between certain nonverbal behaviors and perceived social rank for males and females. This study was inconclusive, as there were no significant differences between male and female perceived rank when different behaviors were exhibited. There were inconsistencies between the findings in this and the previous study, which found that certain behaviors influenced an audience more than others. This may

be attributed to slightly differing connotations of the words influence and social rank. These important aspects of the separate studies were not fully fleshed out and defined for their test subjects; the researchers relied on the subjects own understandings of those characteristics.

Conclusion To better understand and connect the many fields of research and studies being done concerning gender, leadership and nonverbal behavior, standard definitions of terms and study scopes would be helpful to coordinate and centralize research, and increase the ability to compare data between studies. In the current, scattered approach, generalizations are difficult to arrive at based on the existing literature. Each study should adequately define all terms to reduce confusion and inconsistencies. In addition, logical, mathematical and analytical studies seemed to be able to reach the most conclusive results that were able to be generalized between studies. This research method best facilitates investigations in the fields of gender, nonverbal behavior and leadership. The findings in the fields of gender, nonverbal behavior and leadership are extremely important for society and research, as the implications for women seeking to increase their influence in home, at work or on the national scale must adjust their behaviors accordingly to maximize their impact. This is because traditional gender and leadership roles heavily favor masculine behaviors, but societal roles for females dictate that to be accepted, female behaviors must be adopted. This begs the question, how can females be effective in leadership roles? Better research in this field perhaps has the answer.

Resources Anderson, Peter A. Nonverbal Communication: Forms and Functions. Mountain View, California: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1999.Print. Carli, Linda L., Suzanne J. LaFleur, and Christopher C. Loeber. Nonverbal Behavior, Gender, and Influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68.6 (1995): 10301041. ProQuest. Web. 22 Oct. 2012. Carney, Dana R., Judith A. Hall, and Lavonia Smith LeBeau. Beliefs about the nonverbal expression of social power. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 22.4 (1998): 209-28. Michigan Technological University Inter-Library-Loan. Web. 22 Oct. 2012. Cashdan, Elizabeth. Smiles, Speech, and Body Posture: How Women and Men Display Sociometric Status and Power. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 29.2 (2005): 105-23. Michigan Technological University Inter-Library-Loan. Web. 22 Oct. 2012. Guetzkow, Harold S. Groups, Leadership and Men: Research in Human Relations. New York: Russel & Russel, 1951. Print. Hall, Judith A., and Gregory B. Friedman. Status, Gender, and Nonverbal Behavior: A Study of Structured Interactions Between Employees of a Company. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25.9 (1999): 10821091. Sage Journals. Web. 22 Oct. 2012. Knapp, Mark L. Nonverbal Communication in human Interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc, 1972. Print. Mayo, Clara and Nancy M. Henley. Gender and Nonverbal Behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1981. Print. Riggio, Heidi R.and Ronald E. Riggio. Appearance-Based Trait Inferences and Voting: Evolutionary Roots and Implications for Leadership. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 34 (2010): 119-25. Michigan Technological University Inter-Library-Loan. Web. 22 Oct. 2012. Schneir, Miriam. Feminism in our Time: The Essential Writings, World War II to the Present. New York:

Random House, Inc, 1994. Print. Segerstrale, Ullica and Peter Molnar. Nonverbal Communication: Where Nature Meets Culture. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997. Print. Stelter, Nicole Z. Gender Differences in Leadership: Current Social Issues and Future Organizational Implications. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 8.4 (2002): 8899. ProQuest. Web. 22 Oct. 2012.