HOW DO HUMANS CONVEY AFFECTION NONVERBALLY?

Although affection is frequently expressed verbally (see, e.g., Booth-Butter- field & Trotta, 1994), nonverbal forms of expression are often more provoc- ative. As with other nonverbal behaviors, they may be enacted with less conscious control than verbal behaviors and might, therefore, be presumed to reflect more accurately the emotional status of the sender (Burgoon, 1994). They might also entail less risk for the sender than verbal expres- sions because their intended meanings may be easier to deny if, for in- stance, the sentiment is not reciprocated (for review of this and other risks associated with expressing affection, see Floyd, in press). In this section, we focus on the ways in which relational partners (both romantic and non- romantic) express their affection for each other nonverbally.

Why are nonverbal gestures such common vehicles for the communica- tion of human affection? One perspective, espoused by Darwin in his 1872 book, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, advances the no- tion that nonverbal expressions of affection evolved from the nurturant be- haviors used by parents to tend to their children:

No doubt, as affection is a pleasurable sensation, it generally causes a gentle smile and some brightening of the eyes. A strong desire to touch the beloved person is commonly felt; and love is expressed by this means more plainly than by any other. Hence we long to clasp in our arms those whom we ten- derly love. We probably owe this desire to inherited habit, in association with the nursing and tending of our children. (p. 213)

Certainly, the repertoires of particular affectionate behaviors in individual relationships, families, or even entire cultures will vary as a function of learning and social construction. Nowhere is this more evident than in the

case of idiomatic affectionate behavior, which we discuss below. However, Darwin’s suggestion that affectionate behavior is an extension of nurturant behavior is an important one because it explains why affectionate behavior is common across cultures and why so many of the most direct nonverbal forms of conveying affection are widely recognized throughout the world.

In an attempt to understand particular forms of affectionate behavior, much research has employed, at least implicitly, a dichotomous model in which affectionate behaviors are considered to be either verbal or nonver- bal in nature. Although such a model is both intuitive and logically com- plete, it has failed to account for the fact that relational partners often con- vey affection for each other using behaviors that carry that connotative meaning for them but would fail to be recognized as such by observers (in- cluding researchers). To convey his affection for his father, for instance, an adult son might be more apt to help with a household project or provide other types of material support than to hug or kiss his dad. Toward the end of understanding these types of behaviors, in addition to the more overt forms of affectionate expression, Floyd and Morman (1998) proposed a tri- partite model of affectionate communication behaviors that retained verbal affection as a category but distinguished between direct and indirect non- verbal affection behaviors. Behaviors in the latter two categories differ from each other primarily in their level of overtness. Nonverbal behaviors listed as direct affectionate expressions are those that convey affection overtly, in such a way that the sender, receiver, and observers would all tend to concur as to the meaning of the behaviors. In Floyd and Morman’s self-report measure of affectionate behavior (the affectionate communica- tion index, or ACI), hugging, kissing, and putting one’s arms around another are all included in this first category.

Behaviors listed as indirect affectionate expressions, by contrast, are those that convey affectionate sentiments through the use of helpful, sup- portive behaviors—doing favors for someone or helping someone with a project, for instance. In their work on affection encoding, Floyd and Morman discovered that people often expressed their affection for each other through these types of supportive behaviors, rather than through the use of more overt affectionate gestures such as kissing or hugging. These behaviors are called indirect nonverbal affection behaviors because their meaning as expressions of affection is more covert than that of direct affec- tion behaviors such as hugging or putting one’s arm around another. In other words, observers of such behaviors would not necessarily interpret them as expressions of affection, and, as we note below, this covertness is a large part of what makes indirect affectionate behaviors so important. (In- deed, as we discuss later, indirect nonverbal affection behaviors are the most common means of expressing affection in some relationships, even more common than verbal statements are.)

In this section, we will discuss both direct and indirect nonverbal affec- tion behaviors in detail. We will describe the types of actions that fall into each category and address how they are used in personal relationships. We will also review the limited research that has identified how various forms of nonverbal affection behaviors differ from each other in the intensity with which they convey affection.

Direct Affection Behaviors

Direct nonverbal expressions of affection include those nonverbal behav- iors that are readily associated with the communication of affection within the social community in which they are observed. (As we discuss later, these will sometimes vary from culture to culture and sometimes not.) These behaviors can take several forms. In this section, we will describe di- rect nonverbal expressions of affection using three categories: facial behav- iors, postural/kinesic behaviors, and vocalic behaviors. It is important to note, however, that when people convey affection to each other nonver- bally, they often use multiple behaviors simultaneously.

Facial Behaviors. The human face is remarkably expressive, particu-

larly when compared to the faces of all other mammals. Human facial mus- culature allows for the formation of numerous unique expressions, many of which connote messages of affection, affiliation, and liking. The most evi- dent forms of facial affection display include smiling, eye contact, display- ing expressiveness or animation in the face, head nodding during conversa- tion (to show attentiveness), and winking. A number of investigations have verified that these behaviors—particularly when used in combination—con- vey messages of affection, liking, and intimacy.

Burgoon and her colleagues have done extensive research on the rela- tional message interpretations of various nonverbal cues, several of which are pertinent to the communication of affection. In an early experiment, Burgoon, Buller, Hale, and deTurck (1984) had participants watch video- taped segments of conversations in which various combinations of nonver- bal behaviors had been manipulated. They examined the effects that these combinations of cues had on the participants’ subsequent evaluations of the relational messages being displayed by the actors on the videotapes. In terms of facial behaviors, Burgoon et al. reported that high eye contact and frequent smiling were both interpreted as conveying intimacy and affec- tion. A later study by Burgoon, Coker, and Coker (1986) further examined the effects of eye contact on relational message interpretations and found that people displaying high (nearly constant) eye contact were judged as conveying more affection than were those displaying normal, moderate eye

contact. Moreover, those displaying normal eye contact were seen as com- municating more affection than were those displaying low eye contact.

Other studies have examined the ways in which people convey liking or affection for others when they are induced to do so but are not instructed in the behaviors to use. In an experiment by Palmer and Simmons (1995), for instance, participant confederates were induced to show either in- creased or decreased liking for a naive partner, using nonverbal behaviors only. The partners were then asked to indicate their levels of liking for the confederates. After coding for the participants’ nonverbal behaviors, Palmer and Simmons investigated which of those behaviors were most strongly associated with changes in participants’ reported levels of liking for the confederates. Their analyses revealed that participants’ judgments of liking for confederates were associated with increases in three of the confederates’ behaviors: eye contact, smiling, and the use of object-focused gestures (commonly called illustrator gestures.) In a similar study, Ray and Floyd (2000; see also Floyd & Ray, 2003) had participant confederates mod- ify the extent to which they showed liking and affection for their naive part- ners using only nonverbal behaviors. They also coded the participants’ nonverbal behaviors to see which were most strongly predictive of changes in participants’ reports of how much the confederates liked them. In addi- tion, third-party observers watched the interactions on closed-circuit televi- sion and provided their own reports of how much the confederates liked the participants; these reports were also analyzed for their associations with confederates’ behaviors. For both participants and third-party observ- ers, perceptions of confederates’ affection were directly associated with confederates’ facial animation, smiling, head nodding, and eye contact. Burgoon and Le Poire (1999) likewise found that eye contact and smiling were among the most powerful predictors of participants’ perceptions of in- timacy in a laboratory interaction.

Postural and Kinesic Behaviors. Included in this second subcategory

are those affection behaviors related to posture, haptics, proximity, and movement. One of the most provocative of these forms of affection display is touch. Thayer (1986) remarked,

Touch is a signal in the communication process that, above all other commu- nication channels, most directly and immediately escalates the balance of inti- macy . . . to let another touch us is to drop that final and most formidable bar- rier to intimacy. (p. 8)

Several forms of touch serve to convey affection, including hugging, kiss- ing, caressing another’s face, engaging in other adaptors such as grooming behaviors, holding hands, touching another’s arm or leg, and even engaging

in sexual intercourse. A number of investigations have demonstrated that these types of touch behaviors are interpreted as expressions of affection, love, and intimacy, even when they are not reciprocated (see, e.g., Afifi & Johnson, 1999; Burgoon et al. 1984; Burgoon, Walther, & Baesler, 1992; Floyd, 1999; Rane & Draper, 1995). In a field experiment, Burgoon (1991) showed participants photographs of dyadic encounters depicting one of seven types of touch: shaking hands, holding hands, touching the forearm, putting an arm around the shoulder, putting an arm around the waist, touching the face, or a control condition with no touch. Participants were then asked to report their perceptions of how affectionate the actors in the photographs were being with each other. Burgoon reported that all of the touch condi- tions were rated as being more affectionate than the no-touch control con- dition. She also found that, for pictures depicting opposite-sex conversa- tions, face touches and handholding were rated as conveying the most affection, whereas hand shaking was rated as being the least affectionate touch. For photos depicting same-sex interactions, face touches, hand- holding, and arms around shoulders were rated as the most affectionate, with the handshake again being rated as among the least affectionate forms of touch (see also Floyd, 1997). Similarly, Lee and Guerrero (2001) had peo- ple watch videotapes of supposed coworkers who engaged in the various types of touch studied by Burgoon (1991). Face touching was rated as most intimate and handshaking was rated as least intimate.

Third-party observers also tend to evaluate affectionate touch positively when they see it—and they extend those positive evaluations to the person doing the touching. In a study of adults’ nurturant touching of young chil- dren, Rane and Draper (1995) found that both men and women depicted in written scenarios as touching young children in nurturant, affectionate ways were rated higher on goodness and social acceptance than were men and women depicted as not engaging in such touch.

As a means of conveying affection, touch is especially interesting be- cause many touches can be enacted in a variety of ways, each of which might carry a somewhat different relational connotation. Let us consider the kiss as an example, which can range in intensity from a momentary peck on the cheek to a prolonged mouth-to-mouth encounter. Several as- pects of a kiss might vary as a function of its intended meaning. Longer kisses may connote affection of a romantic nature, whereas shorter ones connote familial or platonic affection. A kiss on the mouth is often more inti- mate than a kiss on the cheek, and an open-mouth kiss more intimate than a closed-mouth kiss. A dry kiss (with no tongue contact) might be used when nonromantic affection is conveyed, whereas romantic or sexual affection might call for a wet kiss.

Another example is the embrace, which can also vary on a number of di- mensions. One is their duration; longer hugs are often used to convey more

intense affection than shorter hugs. Another is their intensity, which is a function both of the pressure and the amount of body contact. Intimates may engage in intense, full-body-contact embraces, whereas casual friends might prefer lighter hugs that are restricted to upper-body contact. Finally, hugs vary in their form, which is primarily a function of relative arm place- ment. In his study of the embrace, Floyd (1999) referred to three forms of hugging: the criss-cross hug, in which each person has one arm above and one arm below the other’s; the neck-waist hug, in which one person’s arms wrap around the other’s neck and the other person’s arms wrap around the person’s waist; and, the engulfing hug, in which one person’s arms are held together on his or her chest and the other’s arms are wrapped entirely around this person (this is sometimes referred to as a bear hug).

A different type of touch behavior, which Morris (1977) referred to as a tie sign, is not only an expression of affection between relational partners but also signals the partners’ relational status to third parties. Relational partners enact tie signs by holding hands, linking their arms, putting their arms across each other’s backs or around each other’s waists when they walk, touching each other’s faces in public, or by using other touches that convey affiliation, ownership, or exclusivity. Often, these types of behaviors characterize the beginning stages of a romantic relationship, such as court- ing and dating, more so than later stages when it may be less necessary for romantic partners to signal their attachment to outsiders.

In a series of studies examining the use of tie signs in romantic and nonromantic opposite-sex relationships, Afifi and Johnson (1999) discov- ered that tie signs are used more frequently in dating relationships than in platonic friendships and that the most commonly observed tie signs in both types of relationships are patting, shoulder embraces (putting one’s arm around another’s back shoulder), and handholding. Afifi and Johnson also found that tie signs were used for the purpose of conveying physical affec- tion more often in romantic than in platonic relationships.

Other behaviors in this subcategory include the use of posture and prox- imity to convey affection, liking, and interest in others. In general, standing or sitting close to another person conveys more affection than does main- taining distance, and using a normal or relaxed posture is seen as more af- fectionate than using a stiff, formal posture.

In her field experiment using photographs of dyadic interaction, Bur- goon (1991) also elicited affection ratings for photographs in which she had manipulated the actors’ proximity and posture. The proximity manipulation had three conditions: far (participants stood seven feet apart); intermediate (four feet); and close (one foot). The posture condition likewise had three conditions: tense (in which actors’ arms were folded, their shoulders were tense, their legs were stiff, and they stood symmetrically); intermediate (arms were relaxed at sides, leg and arm posture was symmetrical); and re-

laxed (shoulders were slumped, arms and legs were asymmetrical and away from trunk). Burgoon reported a three-way interaction effect for prox- imity, posture, and the sex combination depicted in the photos (same-sex or opposite-sex) on participants’ affection ratings. Specifically, for opposite- sex pairs, participants gave the highest affection ratings to those with close proximity and relaxed posture. For same-sex pairs, participants’ affection ratings were highest for actors depicting close proximity and intermediate/ normal posture.

One conversational behavior that manipulates both posture and proxim- ity is the forward lean. Leaning forward toward another during a conversa- tion often signals immediacy and interest in the conversation and in the other person (Burgoon, 1991; Palmer, Cappella, Patterson, & Churchill, 1990; Trout & Rosenfeld, 1980). In their study on nonverbal means of conveying affection, Ray and Floyd (2000) found that participants’ reports of how affec- tionate the confederates were being were directly related to the extent to which the confederates leaned forward toward participants during conver- sation.

Vocalic Behaviors. People can also convey affectionate messages by the

way they use their voices when speaking with loved ones. In particular, three acoustic properties of the voice have received attention in research on affectionate communication. The first is fundamental frequency (F0) or

pitch, which is a measure the number of vibrations per second being gener- ated by the voice. The second is variance in F0, or the extent to which the

voice uses a range of pitches as opposed to being monotonic. The third property is amplitude or loudness, which is a measure of the acoustic en- ergy being generated by the voice.

Several studies have investigated the extent to which these acoustic properties of the voice are associated with various relational messages. Low modal F0, for instance, has been found to be associated with percep-

tions of dominance and aggression (Buller & Burgoon, 1986; Ohala, 1982), and with relaxation in men (Newton & Burgoon, 1990a). Monotonic voices— those with low pitch variation—are generally perceived as unpleasant, whereas greater pitch variation characterizes more pleasant-sounding voices (Buller & Burgoon, 1986). Several studies have also indicated that amplitude is directly associated with perceptions of dominance and nega- tive affect (see, e.g., Harrigan, Gramata, Lucic, & Margolis, 1989; Kimble, Forte, & Yoshikawa, 1981; Tusing & Dillard, 2000). To ascertain which vo- calic properties are associated with the communication of affection, Floyd and Ray (2003) analyzed the acoustic properties of the voices of the confed- erates from the Ray and Floyd (2000) experiment. Specifically, they ascer- tained which properties of the confederates’ voices were associated with participants’ and observers’ reports of the confederates’ affection levels.

The predictor variables were confederates’ vocalic fundamental frequency (F0), variance in fundamental frequency, and amplitude. (Control variables

were the sex of the confederate and the confederates’ talk time, measured in seconds.) Working from affection exchange theory, Floyd and Ray hy- pothesized that F0and variance in F0would both show direct relationships

with participants’ and observers’ reports of confederates’ affection levels, whereas loudness would show an inverse relationship with these outcome measures.

Some interesting patterns emerged from the analyses. For F0, observers’

reports manifested the predicted linear relationship. Participants’ reports were subject to a sex-by-F0interaction effect, however, which indicated that

the predicted linear relationship held for female confederates only. For