Laura Guerrero and Leslie Ramos-Salazar

6Nonverbal skills in emotional communication

Abstract: This chapter centers on how social skills in encoding, decoding, and managing emotion function in people’s interpersonal interaction. After conceptualizing the terms emotional experience and emotional expression, the dual process model of nonverbal sending accuracy is discussed as a framework for understanding different types of communication related to emotional skill. Next, specific types of skills are reviewed, including emotional intelligence, emotional expression and sending ability, emotional sensitivity and decoding accuracy, and emotional control and management. The chapter ends with four conclusions: 1. people who possess skills in emotional communication are healthier and have happier relationships, 2. self-monitoring enhances the ability to enact skilled emotional communication, 3. different emotional skills are important depending on the emotion that a person is experiencing within a given situation, and 4. emotional expressions can be challenging to encode and decode because they tend to reflect social motives as well as experienced emotion.

Keywords: decoding accuracy, emotion, emotional communication, emotional control, emotional expression, emotional expressivity, emotional intelligence, emotional sensitivity, nonverbal communication, social skills

Emotional communication plays a critical role in interpersonal interaction. Indeed, Berscheid and Ammazzalorso (2003) noted that “Close relationships are the setting in which people most frequently experience intense emotions, such as joy and love, and the negative emotions, such as anger and fear” (p. 308). How people express these emotions has real consequences for personal and relational well-being (Se-grin and Taylor 2006, 2007). Some people are more adept than others at encoding, decoding, and managing emotional expression. In general, being able to encode and decode positive emotions accurately increases intimacy and promotes healthy relationships. Expressing negative emotions can either harm relationships or elicit support and closeness (Graham et al. 2008). Knowing when and how to express both positive and negative emotions, as well as how to manage them, are key social skills. Possessing these skills has been associated with having satisfying relationships with others (Flora and Segrin 1999) and being socially supportive (Riggio and Zimmerman 1991).

Because social skills related to emotion are especially beneficial in promoting healthy interpersonal relationships (e.g., Schutte et al. 2001), this chapter focuses on social skills in encoding, decoding, and managing emotion within interpersonal contexts. This focus is consistent with Riggio’s (2006) work, which shows that non-verbal competence involves skills in these three areas, and Rosenthal (1979) and Riggio’s (1986) work showing that there are individual differences in these skills. To provide a broader communication framework for discussing these three skills, this chapter opens with a conceptualization of emotion and a discussion of Buck and Powers’ (2013) dual process model of nonverbal sending accuracy. Next, research on emotional intelligence is reviewed, followed by a discussion of three more specific skills related to encoding (emotional expressivity), decoding (emotional sensitivity), and managing (or regulating) emotion, as well as a discussion of how these skills are associated with one another. Finally, the chapter concludes with several principles related to nonverbal skills in emotional communication.

1Foundations

1.1Conceptualizing emotion

Researchers have differentiated between emotional experience and emotional expression (Guerrero, Andersen, and Trost 1998). Emotional experience is the intra-personal, internal reaction that a person has to an emotion-eliciting event. One of the key defining features of emotional experience is that the emotion experienced is a response to a stimulus rather than a more general mood that cannot be connected to a specific event. For example, if Sophie is angry because Josh insulted her, then the insult is the stimulus and the emotional experience of anger is the response. If, on the other hand, Sophie wakes up feeling irritable and angry without really knowing why, then she would be in a bad mood rather than experiencing an emotion.

Emotional experience usually comprises four components: affect, cognition, action tendencies, and physiological changes (Frijda 1993). Affect is the generally positive or negative feeling that is associated with the emotional experience (Clore, Schwarz, and Conway 1994). The cognitive component typically involves appraising an event in a way that elicits emotion, such as seeing an oncoming car as a threat and feeling afraid. Action tendencies are innate, biological impulses that help people adapt to specific emotions (Lazarus 1991). For example, the action tendency associated with fear is to retreat. Finally, physiological changes such as increased heart rate and feeling warm often accompany emotional experiences. Some of these physiological changes, such as increased heart rate, cannot be seen by others. Other physiological changes, such as sweating and blushing, can be seen by others and therefore are part of the emotional experience due to their biological nature, but also part of emotional expression because they can be perceived by others.

Emotional expression is the external reaction to the emotion-eliciting event. When people take action that is consistent with an action tendency, such as attacking when angry or approaching others when happy, they are outwardly expressing their emotions. Much emotional expression is nonverbal. For example, anger can be communicated with a clenched fist and happiness by a smile. Indeed, emotional expression typically involves nonverbal behavior, and sometimes involves verbal communication. Emotional expressions can be spontaneous read-outs of one’s internal states, or they can be intentional displays of communication, as is discussed in the dual process model of nonverbal sending accuracy.

1.2The dual process model of nonverbal sending accuracy

The dual process model (Buck and Powers 2013) helps explain how verbal and nonverbal messages function together. According to this model, communication occurs through two simultaneous streams – a symbolic stream that consists mainly of language, and a spontaneous stream that consists mainly of emotional expressions. Encoding within the symbolic stream is learned, intentional, and propositional, with senders constructing the message and receivers decoding language to understand the message. Symbolic communication tends to occur within the left hemisphere of the brain, which specializes in processing digital information. In contrast, encoding within the spontaneous stream is innate, automatic, and non-propositional, with behavior reflecting a sender’s internal states and receivers picking up on these states by attending to the sender’s nonverbal communication. Spontaneous communication tends to occur within the right hemisphere of the brain, which specializes in processing information holistically (Buck and Powers 2013). These two streams of communication are theorized to function independently and to interact with one another. In almost any communicative exchange, both streams are operating simultaneously.

A third type of communication, pseudospontaneous communication, occurs when a sender tries to control or manage the expression of internal states (Buck and Powers 2013). Unlike spontaneous communication, pseudospontaneous communication involves the intentional production of a message. For example, a scared person may act calm to avoid frightening a child, or coworkers may soften their anger when discussing a contentious issue with one another. Pseudospontaneous communication is similar to the idea of display rules, which represent common ways in which people alter their expression to be more socially and culturally appropriate (Ekman and Friesen 1975; Saarni 1993). Common display rules include simulation (i.e., acting like you are feeling an emotion when you are not), inhibition (i.e., acting like you are not feeling any emotion when you actually are), intensification (i.e., exaggerating the degree to which you are experiencing an emotion), deintensification (i.e., downplaying the degree to which you are experiencing an emotion), and masking (i.e., acting like you are experiencing a different emotion than you are actually feeling).

The dual process model, then, includes components that are related to encoding, decoding, and managing communication. Given our focus on nonverbal skills related to emotion, this chapter discusses research and theory on spontaneous and pseudospontaneous communication. For spontaneous communication, encoding and decoding are more accurate to the extent that these processes reflect the underlying motivational and emotional state of the sender. For example, if a sender is sad, the extent to which her or his face, voice, and body reflects that sadness will impact sending accuracy. Table 1 lists common nonverbal behaviors associated with select emotions. As this table shows, senders who spontaneously frown, slump their shoulders, and speak in a slow monotone voice (among other nonverbal cues) are likely to have more sending accuracy when expressing sadness. Thus, according to the dual process model, if senders have an innate tendency to display these behaviors when sad, receivers will be better able to decode their emotion accurately, which could then lead receivers to engage in more appropriate responses, such as comforting behaviors. Indeed, because spontaneous communication is innate and automatic, the dual process model specifies that people are pre-attuned to understand this kind of communication (Buck and Powers 2013).

Pseudospontaneous communication is related to managing or regulating emotion. In the dual process model, pseudospontaneous messages arise when the intended message is not consistent with one’s motivational-emotional state, leading a sender to “pose” an emotion (or a lack of emotion). Importantly, some researchers, and especially those advancing the behavioral ecology approach (Fridlund and Duchaine 1996) have contended that this type of communication is not disingenuous because it represents a mix of one’s emotional states and the message one intends to send. For example, if a mother curbs her display of anger toward her son because she loves him and wants to be perceived as firm but not overly harsh, her pseudospontaneous communication would reflect some anger (the motivational state) as well as love and concern (which prompted the mother to modify her emotional expression).

2Skills related to emotional communication

As this example illustrates, people commonly express emotions in ways that reflect both their internal feeling states and their personal and social goals. To be optimally successful in reaching their goals, people must possess skills related to emotional intelligence, and more specifically, to sending ability, decoding accuracy, and emotion management, as detailed next.

2.1Emotional intelligence

Similar to how the dual process model ties together different types of communication related to encoding, decoding, and managing messages, the concept of emotional intelligence includes these three processes. Emotional intelligence is the “ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and action” (Salovey and Mayer 1990: 189). Thus, emotional intelligence encompasses a variety of related skills. These include being able to: encode and decode emotions accurately; use emotion in ways that help facilitate thought and better understand one’s own emotions and the emotions of others; grow emotionally; and manage emotions in socially appropriate ways that help one accomplish personal and relational goals (Brackett, Mayer, and Warner 2004). Scholars have also examined how emotional intelligence is related to being able to use emotions constructively to solve individual and relationship problems (Akerjordet and Severinsson 2004). To that end, emotional intelligence has been associated with effective problem-solving in work-place relationships (Jordan and Troth 2011).

Research has also shown a link between emotional intelligence and the provision of social support in workplace, school, family, and nursing relationships (Akerjordet and Severinsson 2004; Dulewicz, Higgs, and Slaski 2003; Pau and Croucher 2003). Those who possess emotional intelligence are better able to cope with mental health issues and stress, and are able to respond appropriately to social environmental stressors (Ciarrochi, Dean, and Anderson 2002). For example, those high in emotional intelligence are better able to determine what constitutes socially appropriate behavior than those who are low in emotional intelligence, which helps them deal with difficult situations. Emotional intelligence has also been shown to associate with behaviors that promote the well-being of others, such as providing acknowledgement and guidance to foster good relationships (Adams 1998). Mortenson (2009) found that people from both the U.S. and China are more likely to seek social support if they possess social skills and trust others. Furthermore, those with social skills are better able to give and receive support in stressful situations (DiTommaso, Brannen, and Best 2004), which may help explain why social skills, such as emotional intelligence, are also associated with better mental and physical health (Segrin 1992).

Emotional intelligence also has positive effects on relationships. Schutte et al. (2001) found that emotionally intelligent people were more cooperative and had more affectionate and satisfying relationships than less emotionally intelligent people. Emotional intelligence mediates individual reticence and communicative tendencies in family relationships, such that reticent individuals engage in more effective communication if they are high in emotional intelligence (Keaten and Kelly 2007). Emotional intelligence has also been associated with effective communication in friendships (Yousefi 2006) and relational satisfaction in marriages (Pokorski and Kuchcewicz 2012).

Several explanations have been given for why emotional intelligence has positive effects on relationships. One reason is that individuals who are high in emotional intelligence are better able to regulate their emotions and are more sensitive to social situations (Pokorski and Kuchcewicz 2012). As a case in point, people with high emotional intelligence are more likely to possess self-monitoring skills, or the ability to adjust their self-presentation based on how they perceive others to be feeling (Schutte et al. 2001). Thus, when emotionally intelligent individuals recognize that their interactional partner is experiencing a negative emotion, such as hurt, they are likely to adjust their communication by providing support. On the other hand, when they decode their partner as experiencing positive emotions, they are likely to continue engaging in the behavior that fosters such emotion.

Another explanation centers on how emotional intelligence guides people’s responses during conflict situations. Specifically, studies have shown that whereas emotional intelligence is positively related to satisfaction in cohabiting and marital relationships, engaging in withdrawal and suppressing emotions (which emotionally intelligent individuals are less likely to do) are negatively associated with satisfaction (Smith, Ciarrochi, and Heaven 2008; Smith, Heaven, and Ciarrochi 2008). In another study, partners who were high in emotional intelligence were more likely to display cooperative behaviors during conflict (Schutte et al. 2001). Together, these studies suggest that conflict behavior may partially mediate the association between emotional intelligence and relational satisfaction.

As the aforementioned studies demonstrate, emotional intelligence is associated with communication that solves problems and provides social and emotional support during face-to-face interaction. Emotional intelligence is also associated with computer-mediated communication. People who tend to use email and social networking sites such as Facebook have been shown to possess higher emotional intelligence than those who do not use these modalities as often (Woods 2001). People with maladaptive uses of the Internet and mobile communication tend to possess low emotional intelligence and have difficulty regulating their own and others’ emotions (Beranuy et al. 2009). Specifically, those who are unskilled in these areas are more likely to get addicted to or rely on social media on the Internet, in part because they lack the skills necessary to communicate effectively in face-to-face situations or are fearful of rejection (McKenna, Green, and Gleason 2002; Young 2007). Thus, across both face-to-face and mediated communication, emotional intelligence is associated with a host of positive outcomes, whereas a lack of emotional intelligence is associated with a host of negative outcomes.

2.2Emotional expressivity and sending ability

As noted above, one ingredient in the recipe for emotional intelligence is the degree to which people encode emotions accurately. This skill is related to emotional expressivity, which has been defined as “individuals’ ability to express, spontaneously and accurately, felt emotional states as well as the ability to nonverbally express attitudes and cues of interpersonal orientation” (Riggio 1986: 651). Sabatelli and Rubin (1986) also defined emotional expressivity in terms of sending ability, with individuals who are high in emotional expressivity able to display positive and negative emotions clearly so that receivers can easily decode what they are feeling. Thus, emotional expressivity includes the display of both positive (e.g., happiness) and negative emotions (e.g., anger), which trigger human behavioral responses (Gross and John 1995). Sending or encoding nonverbal communication to others, such as smiling, is an example of emotional expressivity (Riggio 1986). Indeed, scholars have contended that emotional expressivity is primarily a nonverbal skill (Riggio 1986; Sabatelli and Rubin 1986).

Emotional expressivity has been associated with personal traits, including general well-being (Buck et al. 1998) and health (Fernandez-Ballesteros, Ruiz, and Garde 1998; Leising, Müller, and Hahn 2007). Interestingly, Pennebaker, Zech, and Rime (2001) found that expressing emotions allows individuals to expand their understanding of their experiences. Scholars have found that emotional expressivity is positively related to personal traits such as extraversion, power dominance, and affiliativeness (Friedman 1979; Friedman, Riggio, and Segall 1980). Individuals high in emotional expressivity also report enjoying social interaction more than individuals low in emotional expressivity (Kring, Smith, and Neale 1994). In terms of health, those who are low in emotional expressivity tend to report increased blood pressure levels in addition to disrupted communication (Butler et al. 2003).

Emotional expressivity has also been associated with interpersonal outcomes. In workplace contexts, group members tend to hold a preference for men with extraverted personalities who are perceived to be high in social and emotional expressivity (Riggio et al. 2003). Emotional expressivity also helps smooth over conversations in friendships (Levine and Feldman 1997). In addition, emotional expressivity promotes effective and healthy interpersonal interactions (Gottman and Levenson 1992; Simpson, Gangestad, and Nations 1996), which helps foster relational connection. Research suggests that emotional expressivity leads to interpersonal liking (Riggio and Friedman, 1986), cooperative behavior, and trustworthiness (Boone and Buck 2003). People who are perceived to be high in emotional expressivity tend to be perceived as both interpersonally and physically attractive (Sabatelli and Rubin 1986). In fact, Boone and Buck (2003) found that accuracy in sending emotional information exerts as great an effect on interpersonal attraction as does physical appearance.

Other studies have examined the valence of emotional expressivity by determining whether expressing positive versus negative emotions has differential effects on relational quality. By definition, emotionally expressive people tend to express both positive and negative emotions clearly, but the expression of positive versus negative emotions has different interpersonal implications.

Emotional expressivity typically has positive effects on relationships when the emotion being expressed is positive. The clear expression of positive emotions such as happiness signals to others that one is approachable and wants to develop or maintain a relationship (Harker and Keltner 2001). Positive emotional expressivity has also been associated with interpersonal attraction (Sabatelli and Rubin 1986) and overall marital satisfaction (Feeney, Noller, and Roberts 1998; Feeney 2002). Particularly husbands’ positive emotional expressivity predicts love and relationship maintenance (Gottman, Levenson, and Woodin 2001).

However, the clear expression of negative emotions such as anger may lead to conflict and relational deterioration, especially if the anger is directed toward one’s partner (Burgoon and Bacue 2003; Lane and Hobfoll 1992). Anger expressions can increase arousal and stress, thereby disrupting the flow of communication (Butler et al. 2003). Interestingly though, if anger is expressed toward an outside source, such expression can encourage relational bonding by triggering social support from one’s partner (Kowaslski 1996). Similarly, when an individual is sad and expresses that sadness by crying in front of another person, such an expression of sadness may trigger social support and bond people together (Vingerhoets et al. 2000). Thus, when the emotion being expressed is negative, emotional expressivity can bond people together in cases where social support is elicited, but can harm relationships in cases where the negative emotion is directed toward the partner. Graham et al. (2008) conducted multiple studies supporting the idea that the expression of negative affect can sometimes elicit support and strengthen relationships. The key seems to be that negative expressions of emotion should be used selectively and with trusted receivers, and that such expressions should communicate one’s needs in a clear and constructive manner.

Emotional expressivity has been associated with social support in face-to-face settings. Indeed, several researchers have found that emotional expressivity is associated with the ability to give and receive social support (Bonnano and Papa 2003; Vingerhoets et al. 2000). Emotional expressivity has also been shown to promote emotional contagion, which leads people to experience similar emotions and therefore feel more empathy toward one another (Hatfield, Cacioppo, and Rapson 1994). Being emotionally expressive is also associated with giving sympathetic responses (Eisenberg et al. 1989). The link between emotional expressivity and social support may be partially explained by other research showing that individuals who are high in emotional expressivity tend to have more positive affect for others, which helps them function better in social settings (Burgin et al. 2012).

Emotional expressivity also correlates positively with certain forms of computer-mediated communication. Research suggests that those who communicate in online settings using social networking sites such as Facebook and who possess emotional skills such as expressivity are able to project more positive images of themselves to other people than those who do not possess such skills (Weisbuch, Ivecic, and Ambady 2009). Individuals who engage in nonverbal expressivity and self-disclosure online are perceived as expressing their “real life” self, and are therefore seen as more likable on social networking sites (Weisbuch, Ivecic, and Ambady 2009). Another study suggests that shy individuals (who may lack emotional expressivity) are more likely to self-disclose and express themselves in online settings than in face-to-face settings (Stritzke, Nguyen, and Durkin 2004).

The research reviewed above suggests that people who possess emotional expressivity generally have happier relationships and are more effective communicators. Based on this evidence, scholars have argued that emotional expressivity is adaptive because it fosters social interaction and coordination among people (e.g., Boone and Buck 2003). Given that emotional expressivity is conceptualized as a trait and an ability, it makes sense that this characteristic has evolved within the human species. Boone and Buck further argued that the reason emotional expressivity is adaptive is because it conveys trustworthiness, which promotes cooperation. As they note, “Emotional expressivity, which refers to the degree to which individuals accurately communicate their feeling states, is helpful to the cooperative process in that it reveals the desires and intentions of the individual and allows others to make heuristic decisions such as whether to cooperate or not” (p. 179). In support of the idea that emotional expressivity is associated with trustworthiness, studies have shown that people are judged as more believable to the extent that they are nonverbally expressive (Burgoon, Buller, and Guerrero 1995). Thus, emotional expressivity may be valuable not just in expressing individual emotions, but also in giving receivers a sense that they really know and can trust the emotionally expressive person.

2.3Emotional sensitivity and decoding accuracy

Skills in encoding and expressivity are undoubtedly important, but if the receiver is unskilled in decoding, the message will not be interpreted correctly. Riggio (1986) defined emotional sensitivity as the ability to decode emotions, beliefs, attitudes, and social traits such as dominance. Emotional sensitivity is related to the broader construct of interpersonal sensitivity, which refers to the ability to perceive, understand, and respond to the internal states of others (Decety and Batson 2007; Hall and Bernieri 2001). Emotional sensitivity is also related to decoding accuracy; the more emotionally sensitive a receiver is, the more accurately he or she is able to interpret the meaning of a sender’s message. Determining whether or not nonverbal behaviors are decoded accurately, however, can be difficult. People tend to be more accurate decoders of certain emotions than others. Specifically, basic emotions – such as happiness, anger, sadness, and fear – tend to be decoded more accurately than blended emotions – such as jealousy, disappointment, and hurt. When negative emotions are decoded inaccurately, one negative emotion is often mistaken for another (Custrini and Feldman 1989; Hortaçsu and Ekinci 1992; Marsh, Adams, and Kleck 2005), so anger, for example, can easily be misinterpreted as disgust or fear. Negative emotions such as these are most likely to be decoded correctly when the emotion being expressed is intense (Hess, Blairy and Kleck 1997; Hortaçsu and Ekinci 1992). Studies focusing on how people decode emotions from the voice have produced similar findings. On the basis of vocal cues, people tend to make mistakes such as confusing fear with nervousness, pride or surprise with happiness, anger with contempt, and love with sympathy (Apple and Hecht 1982; Banse and Scherer 1996).

Another factor that makes decoding emotional expressions difficult is that people engage in multiple nonverbal behaviors simultaneously and each behavior can have various meanings (Nowicki and Duke 1994). A person’s posture may be slumped and vocal affect may be dampened, which could indicate sadness, but this same person may be smiling and giving eye contact, which might signal happiness. Based on earlier work by Minskoff (1980a, 1980b), Nowicki and Duke also argued that accuracy entails being able to discriminate among different nonverbal behaviors, as well as being able to understand the social meanings of those behaviors, make sense of them in ways that facilitate smooth social interaction, and apply their meanings in ways that help people develop and maintain relationships.

The notion that accuracy is sometimes impeded when multiple nonverbal cues are used is well-founded. Research has shown that receivers typically take between four and six different modalities into consideration when making judgments about the emotion a sender is experiencing (Planalp, DeFransisco, and Rutherford 1996). Common nonverbal modalities for decoding emotion include the face, voice, body, activity cues such as slamming a door, and physiological cues such as blushing (Planalp, DeFransisco, and Rutherford 1996). Guerrero and Floyd (2006) noted that communicators who are skilled in decoding are able to “discern how the various cues work together to show emotion, rather than focusing on one or two cues in isolation or examining the cues as an aggregate or average” (p. 125).

At least three other conditions influence how accurately a person decodes non-verbal messages related to emotion (Burgoon and Bacue 2003). First, people need to have a working knowledge of display rules and when they are commonly used. Second, and somewhat relatedly, people must be able to distinguish between spontaneous and posed expressions. These two conditions relate back to the distinction between spontaneous and pseudospontaneous communication made earlier in this chapter. Spontaneous nonverbal cues may be easier to decode accurately because they are read-outs of internal states that people are predisposed to understand. With pseudospontaneous communication, however, the sender is intentionally changing the emotional expression so that it conforms to social or cultural norms or facilitates individual goals. This can make pseudospontaneous messages harder to decode because the messages are somewhat constructed rather than purely natural reactions to internal states. However, research also suggests that during interpersonal interaction, posed emotions are sometimes easier to decode than spontaneous emotions (Motley and Camden, 1988). This is because when people pose emotions, they display the cues that are stereotypically associated with the emotion they are posing. Receivers then decode those cues in line with stereotypes.

These findings appear contradictory. On the one hand, spontaneous emotions are easy to decode when they are pure read-outs of emotion, but on the other hand, posed emotions are easy to decode when they reflect stereotypical emotional displays. During ongoing interpersonal interaction, however, neither of these types of emotional displays may occur very often since people typically experience a stream of different thoughts and emotions as they interact with one another. Moreover, posing an emotion when one is not feeling anything may be relatively easy. Posing an emotion when one is experiencing a different emotion may be much more difficult, making decoding more difficult as well. Overall, then, expressions that are completely posed or are pure read-outs of emotion may be easier to decode than expressions that are shaped by both internal emotion and display rules.

The degree to which people can decode emotional expressions accurately has real consequences for relationships. Indeed, studies have demonstrated that decoding ability is a better predictor of marital satisfaction than encoding ability (Gottman and Porterfield 1981). When spouses have trouble decoding emotional expressions accurately, they experience more conflict within their marriage (Mo-grain and Vettesse 2003). Satisfied and dissatisfied couples also show differential skill in decoding emotions accurately when put into a conflict situation, with partners in satisfying relationships better able to decode one another’s emotions at various points during a conflict episode than partners in dissatisfying relationships (Noller and Ruzzene 1991).

How people decode emotions is also important. Gaelick, Bodenhausen, and Wyer (1985) found that people tend to underestimate the extent to which partners communicate affectionate emotions during conflict, especially in comparison to hostile emotions. This led partners to reciprocate hostile emotional expressions more than affectionate emotional expressions. Thus, being able to accurately decode affectionate emotional expressions during conflict is a helpful social skill. Equally important is that people do not infer negativity from neutral expressions. Gottman (1979) found that partners in dissatisfying relationships tended to interpret messages that were intended to be affectively neutral as negative, whereas partners in satisfying relationships tended to interpret the same messages as positive. Koerner and Fitzpatrick (2002) added another dimension by looking at whether a partner’s emotions are decoded as being caused by the relationship (relational affect) or caused by an outside force (nonrelational affect). Couples tended to be more satisfied when they were able to accurately decode relational positive affect and nonrelational negative affect. In other words, partners in happy relationships were able to recognize when their partner’s positive affect was attributable to the relationship and when their partner’s negative affect was attributable to external forces.

2.4Emotional control and the management of emotion

As noted earlier, pseudospontaneous communication occurs when people try to control or manage their expression of emotion (Buck and Powers 2013). Being able to do so is an important communication skill. Riggio (1986) referred to this skill as emotional control, and noted that emotional control is related to self-monitoring. This skill also falls under the broader concept of emotion regulation, which encompasses “attempts individuals make to influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how these emotions are experienced and expressed” (Gross, Richards, and John 2006: 14).

In addition to suppressing the expression of emotion, emotional management can also include intensifying or masking emotions. For example, during the Academy Awards, the faces of the nominees are often shown as they announce the winner. The nominees who do not win usually smile and clap as if they are happy, when in actuality they are likely to be at least somewhat disappointed. Thus, emotional management usually involves displaying an appropriate expression of emotion within a given context. Some scholars have used the term display rules to describe this type of management (Ekman and Friesen 1975; Saarni 1993). These scholars contend that people who use display rules hide their real feelings by displaying an altered expression. However, as noted previously, other scholars believe that when people manage their emotional expression, the resulting expression is a true reflection of their social motives rather than something artificial (Fridlund and Duchaine 1996). For example, if a wife curbs her expression of anger toward her husband because she loves him and does not want to fight, then her expression will reflect a mix of anger and her desire to get along with her husband.

People may work especially hard to manage emotions when a relationship is first developing. Aune, Aune, and Buller (1994) found that in the early stages of romantic relationship development people tend to perceive expressions of negative emotion as inappropriate, and are therefore likely to inhibit, de-intensify, or mask their negative emotion. Guerrero and Andersen (2000) elaborated on this idea by noting that in the early stages of relationships individuals are usually on their best behavior, which includes expressing appropriate positive emotions while inhibiting most expressions of negative emotion. This type of emotional management is essential for making a good impression and fostering social attraction, both of which are often necessary ingredients for developing a new relationship. Therefore, individuals who are skilled in managing their emotions in this way are better able to develop close relationships.

Interestingly, a second study by Aune, Buller, and Aune (1996) found a curvilinear relationship between relational stage and the management of negative emotion, such that people managed their expression more if the relationship was in an early or advanced stage versus an intermediate stage. Couples in developed, committed relationships may develop patterns for coping with negative emotion within their relationships, which may include curbing expressions of anger and other negative emotions. As noted above, couples in new relationships may inhibit expressions of negative emotion as part of a broader impression management strategy. In contrast, those in the intermediate stages of a relationship, such as those who have been dating for a while but are not fully committed, appear to experience and express the most emotion without exercising as much emotional control.

Consistent with the idea that the inhibition of negative emotions can sometimes be beneficial in relationships, Feeney, Noller, and Roberts (1998) found that people were more satisfied with their relationships when their partner inhibited expressions of anger. However, inhibiting expressions of sadness had the opposite effect – when people inhibited (rather than expressed) sad emotion, their partners reported being less satisfied. These findings suggest that the type of negative emotion makes a difference. Intense expressions of anger are likely to lead to spirals of negative behavior, whereas expressions of sadness often elicit empathy and support from one’s partner.

The way emotions are managed also makes a difference. Scholars have debated whether suppressing emotion has positive or negative effects on individual well-being and social relationships (Gross and Levenson 1997). On the one hand, suppressing emotion can lead people to bottle up their feelings and experience increased physiological arousal as evidenced by an accelerated heart rate and elevated blood pressure. When people suppress emotion during conversation, they are also more distracted and less responsive (Butler et al. 2003). On the other hand, acting happy when upset can actually lead people to experience less negative affect, as is evidenced by work on the facial feedback hypothesis (Buck 1980). According to this hypothesis, when people pose an emotion using a facial expression, the muscles in the face signal the brain to produce feelings consistent with that facial expression. Thus, an implication of the facial feedback hypothesis is that masking or de-intensifying negative emotions is healthy because it decreases negative affect.

So how can these two areas of research be reconciled? Gross and Levenson (1997) argued that, in terms of emotional regulation, there is an optimal middle ground “somewhere between total strangulation and completely unfettered expression” (p. 96). Individuals who are socially skilled are unlikely to shut down emotionally or to express all of their feelings spontaneously. Instead they monitor others’ reactions and adjust their expressions accordingly. Also, there is a difference between suppressing negative emotions such as anger completely, versus de-intensifying or masking them. The latter two processes generally produce healthier outcomes than the former.

When people suppress or de-intensify emotions, another important consideration is whether or not they have reappraised the situation. Gross and John (2003) describe two processes that underlie emotion regulation. One is cognitive reappraisal, which involves cognitively reframing a negative emotion-eliciting situation so that it is viewed more positively. For example, during a conflict episode, an individual may be frustrated but also realize that talking about issues could help solve problems. Reappraisals are most likely to be successful if they occur early on when the person is first experiencing emotion. The other process is expressive suppression, which involves inhibiting the expression of emotions that one is experiencing as they are occurring. Gross and John (2003) found that people who employ cognitive reappraisal feel better about themselves, have closer relationships, and are liked more by others than those who employ expressive suppression.

3Associations among skills

So far this chapter has focused on different skills related to nonverbal communication and emotion without considering in detail how those skills might interact. Burgoon and Bacue (2003) reviewed the literature on social skills and concluded that encoding and decoding skills are moderately correlated, such that those who are skilled in encoding emotion also tend to be good at decoding emotion, and vice versa. However, this association is modest – there is a tendency for people who are skilled in one area to be skilled in another area, but this is not always the case. Moreover, Elfenbein and Eisenkraft (2010) demonstrated, through meta-analysis, that the association between encoding and decoding only holds when senders are engaged in the intentional encoding of emotional information. In contrast, the spontaneous encoding of affect was not associated with better decoding. The association between encoding and decoding skills is also especially likely within the same channel or with similar types of messages. So someone who is adept at encoding emotion using her or his voice, also tends to be good at deciphering emotional information from another person’s voice. Similarly, someone who is good at sending messages related to liking and affiliation, is also likely to be good at reading those kinds of messages sent by another person.

Buck and Powers (2013) provide a partial explanation for the relationship between encoding and decoding ability by proposing that: “A good sender can effectively and efficiently stimulate emotional expression in other persons, and thereby have that emotional information to draw on in making decisions” (p. 428). This process occurs through emotional sonar and identification of friend or foe (Buck and Powers 2013). Emotional sonar refers to the idea that if a sender is able to accurately send an emotional message to a receiver, that message will encourage an expressive response in the receiver, which will then help the sender read the receiver’s emotions better. Buck and Powers describe this as an “emotionally enriched ‘bubble’ of active and accurate emotion sonar” that good encoders and decoders carry with them (p. 428). Being able to identify someone as a friend or foe is an extension of this idea. Specifically, people who can accurately send and manage emotional expressions are able to get a better idea of whether receivers are friendly or hostile by watching their reactions to such expressions.

4Conclusion

The research on encoding, decoding, and managing emotional communication leads to four general principles related to social skills in emotional communication. First, people who are skilled in encoding, decoding, and managing emotion are healthier and have more satisfying relationships. Being better able to manage conflict and be supportive may mediate the associations between these skills and positive health and relational outcomes. People with skills in emotional expressivity also tend to be perceived as more trustworthy and likable, which fosters better relationships.

Second, self-monitoring enhances an individual’s ability to engage in skilled emotional communication. Self-monitoring is a component of emotional intelligence and is also an important part of being able to control one’s emotions effectively. Managing emotions effectively requires being able to make adjustments based on how social interaction is unfolding. Self-monitoring also helps people strike a balance between being overly expressive and overly regulatory when expressing emotions. Either extreme can have negative effects on social interaction and the perceptions people have of one another.

Third, emotional skills operate in different ways depending on the emotion that a person is experiencing. Being able to express positive emotions and inhibit certain negative emotions, such as anger directed toward one’s partner, fosters healthier relationships. However, negative emotions should not be inhibited completely as this can lead to increased physiological arousal and leave problems unresolved. The key may be to de-intensify such expressions so that they are less threatening. The valence of emotion is also important in the decoding process. People tend to overestimate negativity and underestimate positivity, which can have detrimental effects on relationship functioning. When decoding errors are made, emotions with the same valence (e.g., anger versus fear) are more likely to be confused for one another.

Fourth, whether encoding, decoding, or managing emotion, it is critical to remember that emotional expressions are usually not pure read-outs of emotion, nor are they completely posed. Instead, most expressions reflect the initial emotion that is experienced as well as people’s social motives. This makes emotional expressions more difficult to encode and decode with accuracy. In addition, when people are trying to manage their emotional expression, they usually have multiple goals in mind, such as wanting their partner to understand how they feel while also displaying emotion appropriately. People who are skilled in emotional communication are better able to discriminate between behaviors that are spontaneous versus posed, as well as better able to understand the social meanings of those behaviors.

Overall, the literature reviewed in this chapter demonstrates that skills related to emotional communication matter in people’s everyday lives. Whether trying to be polite and smile while waiting in a long line, or trying to express one’s feeling of affection for a loved one, being able to express and manage emotions appropriately is an important communication skill. Likewise, being able to decode the emotional expressions of others is a crucial ingredient in the recipe for communication competence. Mastering these skills can enhance people’s personal and social lives.

References

Adams, Elie Maynard. 1998. Emotional intelligence and wisdom. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 36. 1–14.

Akerjordet, Kristin and Elisabeth Severinsson. 2004. Emotional intelligence in mental health nurses talking about practice. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 13. 164–170.

Apple, William and Kenneth Hecht. 1982. Speaking emotionally: The relation between verbal and vocal communication of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42. 864–865.

Aune, Krystyna Strzyzewski, R. Kelly Aune and David B. Buller. 1994. The experience, expression, and perceived appropriateness of emotions across levels of relationship development. The Journal of Social Psychology 134. 141–150.

Aune, Krystyna Strzyzewski, David B. Buller and R. Kelly Aune. 1996. Display rule development in romantic relationships: Emotion management and perceived appropriateness of emotions across relationship stages. Human Communication Research 23. 115–145.

Banse, Rainer and Klaus R. Scherer. 1996. Acoustic profiles in vocal emotion expression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70. 614–636.

Beranuy, Marta, Ursula Oberst, Xavier Carbonell and Ander Chamarro. 2009. Problematic Internet and mobile phone use and clinical symptoms in college students: The role of emotional intelligence. Computers in Human Behavior 25. 1182–1187.

Berscheid, Ellen and Hilary Ammazzalorso. 2003. Emotional experience in close relationships. In: Garth J. Fletcher and Margaret S. Clark (eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Interpersonal Process, 308–330. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Bonnano, George A. and Anthony Papa. 2003. The social and functional aspects of emotional expression during bereavement. In: Pierre Phillipot, Robert S. Feldman and Erik J. Coats (eds.), Nonverbal Behavior in Clinical Settings, 145–170. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Boone, Thomas R. and Ross Buck. 2003. Emotional expressivity and trustworthiness: The role of nonverbal behavior in the evolution of cooperation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 27. 163– 182.

Brackett, Marc A., John D. Mayer and Rebecca M. Warner. 2004. Emotional intelligence and its relation to everyday behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences 36. 1387–1402.

Buck, Ross. 1980. Nonverbal behavior and the theory of emotion: the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38. 811–824.

Buck, Ross W. and Stacie R. Powers. 2013. Encoding, and display: A developmental-interactionist model of nonverbal sending accuracy. In: Judith A. Hall and Mark L. Knapp (eds.), Nonverbal Communication, 403–440. (Handbooks of Communication Science 2.) Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Buck, Ross, Cheryl K. Goldman, Caroline J. Easton and Nanciann N. Smith. 1998. Social learning and emotional education: Emotional expression and communication in behaviorally disordered children and schizophrenic patients. In: William F. J. Flack and James D. Laird (eds.), Emotions in Psychopathology: Theory and Research, 298–314. New York: Oxford University Press.

Burgin, Chris J., Leslie H. Brown, Amethyst Royal, Paul J. Silvia, Neus Barrantes-Vidal and Thomas R. Kwapil. 2012. Being with others and feeling happy: Emotional expressivity in everyday life. Personality and Individual Differences 53. 185–190.

Burgoon, Judee K. and Aaron E. Bacue. 2003. Nonverbal communication skills. In: John O. Greene and Brant R. Burleson (eds.), Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills, 179– 219. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Burgoon, Judee K., David B. Buller and Laura K. Guerrero. 1995. Interpersonal deception VII: The effects of social skill and nonverbal communication on deception success and detection accuracy. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 41. 289–311.

Butler, Emily A., Boris Egloff, Frank H. Wilhelm, Nancy C. Smith, Elizabeth A. Erickson and James J. Gross. 2003. The social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion 3. 48–67.

Ciarrochi, Joseph, Frank P. Dean and Stephen Anderson. 2002. Emotional intelligence moderates the relationship between stress and mental health. Personality and Individual Differences 32. 197–209.

Clore, Gerald L., Norbert Schwarz and Michael Conway. 1994. Affective causes and consequences of social information processing. In: Robert S. Wyer and Thomas K. Srull (eds.), Handbook of Social Cognition, 2nd ed., vol. 1. 323–419. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Custrini, Robert J. and Robert S. Feldman. 1989. Children’s social competence and nonverbal encoding and decoding of emotions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 18. 336–342.

Decety, Jean and Daniel C. Batson. 2007. Social neuroscience approaches to interpersonal sensitivity. Social Neuroscience 2. 151–157.

DiTommaso, Enrico, Cyndi Brannen and Lisa A. Best. 2004. Measurement and validity characteristics of the short version of the social and emotional loneliness scale for adults. Educational and Psychological Measurement 64. 99–119.

Dulewicz Victor, Malcolm Higgs and Mark Slaski. 2003. Measuring emotional intelligence: Content, construct and criterion-related validity. Journal of Managerial Psychology 18. 405– 420.

Eisenberg, Nancy, Richard A. Fabes, Mark Schaller and Paul A. Miller. 1989. Sympathy and personal distress: Development, gender differences, and interrelations of indexes. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 44. 107–126.

Ekman, Paul and Wallace V. Friesen. 1975. Unmasking the Face: A Guide to Recognizing Emotions from Facial Cues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Elfenbein, Hillary and Noah Eisenkraft. 2010. The relationship between displaying and perceiving nonverbal cues of affect: A meta-analysis to solve an old mystery. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98. 301–318.

Feeney, Judith A. 2002. Attachment, marital interaction, and relationship satisfaction: A diary study. Personal Relationships 9. 39–55.

Feeney, Judith A., Patricia Noller and Nigel Roberts. 1998. Emotion, attachment, and satisfaction in close relationships. In: Peter A. Andersen and Laura K. Guerrero (eds.), The Handbook of Communication and Emotion, 473–505. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Fernandez-Ballesteros, Rocio, Maria Angeles Ruiz and Santiago Garde. 1998. Emotional expression in healthy women and those with breast cancer. British Journal of Health Psychology 3. 41–50.

Flora, Jeanne and Chris Segrin. 1999. Social skills are associated with satisfaction in close relationships. Psychological Reports 84. 803–804.

Fridlund, Alan J. and Bradley Duchaine. 1996. Facial expressions of emotion and the delusion of the hermetic self. In: Rom Harré and W. Gerrod Parrott (eds.), The Emotions: Social, Cultural, and Biological Dimensions 259–284. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Friedman, Howard S. 1979. The interactive effects of facial expressions of emotion and verbal messages on perceptions of affective meaning. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 15. 453–469.

Friedman, Howard S., Ronald E. Riggio and Daniel O. Segall. 1980. Personality and the enactment of emotion. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 5. 35–48.

Frijda, Nico H. 1993. The place of appraisal in emotion. Cognition & Emotion 7. 357–387.

Gaelick, Lisa, Galen V. Bodenhausen and Robert S. Wyer. 1985. Emotional communication in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49. 1246–1265.

Gottman, John M. 1979. Marital Interaction: Experimental Investigations. New York: Academic Press.

Gottman, John M. and Robert W. Levenson. 1992. Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63. 221–233.

Gottman, John, Robert Levenson and Erica Woodin. 2001. Facial expressions during marital conflict. Journal of Family Communication 1. 37–57.

Gottman, John M. and Albert L. Porterfield. 1981. Communicative competence in the nonverbal behavior of married couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family 43. 817–824.

Graham, Steven M., Julie Y. Huang, Margaret S. Clark and Vicki S. Helgeson. 2008. The positives of negative emotions: Willingness to express negative emotions promotes relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 3. 394–406.

Gross, James J. and Oliver P. John. 1995. Facets of emotional expressivity: Three self-report factors and their correlates. Personal Individual Differences 19. 555–568.

Gross, James J. and Oliver P. John. 2003. Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85. 348–362.

Gross, James J. and Robert W. Levenson. 1997. Hiding feelings: the acute effects of inhibiting negative and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 106. 95–103.

Gross, James J., Jane M. Richards and Oliver P. John. 2006. Emotion regulation in everyday life. In: Douglas K. Snyder, Jeffry A. Simpson and Jan N. Hughes (eds.), Emotion Regulation in Families: Pathways to Dysfunction and Health, 13–35. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Guerrero, Laura K. and Peter Andersen. 2000. Emotion in close relationships. In: Clyde Hendrick and Susan Hendrick (eds.) Close Relationships: A Sourcebook, 171–183. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Guerrero, Laura K., Peter A. Andersen and Melanie R. Trost. 1998. Communication and emotion: Basic concepts and approaches. In: Peter A. Andersen and Laura K. Guerrero (eds.), Handbook of Communication and Emotion, 3–27. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Guerrero, Laura K. and Kory Floyd. 2006. Nonverbal Communication in Close Relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hall, Judith A. and Frank J. Bernieri. 2001. Interpersonal Sensitivity: Theory and Measurement. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Harker, LeeAnne and Dacher Keltner. 2001. Expressions of positive emotion in women’s college yearbook pictures and their relationship to personality and life outcomes across adulthood. Personality Processes and Individual Differences 80. 112–124.

Hatfield, Elaine, John T. Cacioppo and Richard L. Rapson. 1994. Emotional Contagion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hess, Ursula, Sylvie Blairy and Robert E. Kleck. 1997. The intensity of emotional facial expressions and decoding accuracy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 21. 241–257.

Hortaçsu, Nuran and Birsen Ekinci. 1992. Children’s reliance on situational and vocal expression of emotions: Consistent and conflicting cues. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 16. 231–247.

Jordan, Peter J. and Ashlea Troth. 2011. Emotional intelligence and leader member exchange: The relationship with employee turnover intentions and job satisfaction. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 32. 260–280.

Keaten, James and Lynne Kelly. 2007. Emotional intelligence as a mediator of family communication patterns and reticence. Communication Reports 20. 104–116.

Koerner, Ascan F. and Mary Anne Fitzpatrick. 2002. Toward a theory of family communication. Communication Theory 12. 70–91.

Kowaslski, Robin. 1996. Complaints and complaining: functions, antecedents and consequences. Psychological Bulletin 119. 179–196.

Kring, Ann M., David A. Smith and John M. Neale. 1994. Individual differences in dispositional expressiveness: Development and validation of the emotional expressivity scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66. 934–949.

Lane, Carol and Stevan E. Hobfoll. 1992. How loss affects anger and alienates potential supporters. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 60. 935–942.

Lazarus, Richard S. 1991. Emotion and Adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Leising, Daniel, Jochen Müller and Christina Hahn. 2007. An adjective list for accessing emotional expressivity in psychotherapy research. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy 14. 377–385.

Levine, Sara P. and Robert S. Feldman. 1997. Self-presentational goals, self-monitoring, and nonverbal behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 19. 505–518.

Marsh, Abigail A., Reginald B. Adams and Robert E. Kleck. 2005. Why do fear and anger look the way they do? Form and social function in facial expressions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31. 73–86.

McKenna, Katelyn, Amie S. Green and Marci Gleason. 2002. Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues 58. 9–31.

Minskoff, Esther H. 1980a. Teaching approach for developing nonverbal communication skills in students with social perceptual skills. Part I. The basic approaches and body language clues. Journal of Learning Disabilities 13. 118–124.

Minskoff, Esther H. 1980b. Teaching approach for developing nonverbal communication skills in students with social perceptual skills. Part II. Proxemic, vocalic, and artifactual cues. Journal of Learning Disabilities 13. 203–208.

Mograin, Myriam and Lisa C. Vettesse. 2003. Conflict over emotional expression: Implications for interpersonal communication and depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29. 545–555.

Mortenson, Steven T. 2009. Interpersonal trust and social skill in seeking social support among Chinese and Americans. Communication Research 36. 32–53.

Motley, Michael T. and Carl T. Camden. 1988. Facial expression of emotion: A comparison of posed expressions versus spontaneous expressions in an interpersonal communication setting. Western Journal of Communication 52. 1–22.

Noller, Patricia and Melodie Ruzzene. 1991. Communication in marriage: The influence of affect and cognition. In: Garth J. O. Fletcher and Frank D. Fincham (eds.), Cognition in Close Relationships, 203–233. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Nowicki Jr., Stephen and Marshall P. Duke. 1994. Individual differences in the nonverbal communication of affect: The diagnostic analysis of nonverbal accuracy scale. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 18. 9–35.

Pau, Allan and Ray Croucher. 2003. Emotional intelligence and perceived stress in dental undergraduates. Critical Issues in Dental Education 67. 1023–1028.

Pennebaker, James W., Emmanuelle Zech and Bernard Rime. 2001. Disclosing and sharing emotions: Psychological, social, and health consequences. In: Margaret S. Stroebe, Robert O. Hansson, Henk Schut and Wolfgang Stroebe (eds.), Handbook of Bereavement Research: Consequences, Coping, and Care, 517–543. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Planalp, Sally, Victoria DeFransisco and Diane Rutherford. 1996. Varieties of cues to emotion in naturally-occurring situations. Cognition and Emotion 10. 137–153.

Pokorski, Mieczyslaw and Anna Kuchcewicz. 2012. Quality of cohabiting and marital relationships among young couples. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 2. 191–196.

Riggio, Ronald E. 1986. Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51. 649–660.

Riggio, Ronald E. 2006. Nonverbal skills and abilities. In: Valerie Manusov and Miles Patterson (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Nonverbal Communication, 79–95. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Riggio, Ronald E. and Howard Friedman. 1986. Impression formation: The role of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50. 421–427.

Riggio, Ronald E., Heidi R. Riggio, Charles Salinas and Emmet J. Coles. 2003. The role of social and emotional communication skills in leader emergence and effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 7. 83–103.

Riggio, Ronald E. and Marc Zimmerman. 1991. Social skills and interpersonal relationships: Influences on social support and support seeking. In: Warren H. Jones and Daniel Perlman (eds.), Advances in Personal Relationships, Relationships, vol. 2. 133–155. London: Jessica Kingsley Press.

Rosenthal, Robert. 1979. The “file drawer problem” and the tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin 86. 638–641.

Saarni, Carolyn. 1993. Socialization of emotion. In: Michael Lewis and Jeannette M. Haviland (eds.) Handbook of Emotions 435–446. New York: Guilford Press.

Sabatelli, Ronald M. and Michal Rubin. 1986. Nonverbal expressiveness and physical attractiveness as mediators of interpersonal perceptions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 10. 120–133.

Salovey, Peter and John D. Mayer. 1990. Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality 9. 185–211.

Schutte, Nicola S., John M. Malouff, Chad Bobick, Tracie D. Coston, Cyndy Greeson, Christina Jedlicka, Emily Rhodes and Greta Wendorf. 2001. Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. The Journal of Social Psychology 14. 523–536.

Segrin, Chris. 1992. Specifying the nature of social skill deficits associated with depression. Human Communication Research 19. 89–123.

Segrin, Chris and Melissa Taylor. 2006. A social cognitive analysis of the effects of parental divorce on premarital couples’ communication skills. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 46. 57–83.

Segrin, Chris and Melissa Taylor. 2007. Positive interpersonal relationships mediate the association between social skills and psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences 43. 637–646.

Simpson, Jeffrey A., Steven W. Gangestad and Christi Nations. 1996. Sociosexuality and relationship initiation: An ethological perspective of nonverbal behavior. In: Garth J. O. Fletcher and Julie Fitness (eds.), Knowledge Structures in Close Relationships: A Social Psychological Approach, 121–146. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Smith, Lynne, Joseph Ciarrochi and Patrick Heaven. 2008. The stability of change of trait emotional intelligence, conflict communication patterns, and relationship satisfaction: A one-year longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences 45. 738–743.

Smith, Lynne, Patrick Heaven and Joseph Ciarrochi. 2008. Trait emotional intelligence, conflict communication patterns, and relationship satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences 44. 1314–1325.

Stritzke, Werner G. K., Anh Nguyen and Kevin Durkin. 2004. Shyness and computer-mediated communication: A self-presentational theory perspective. Media Psychology 6. 1–22.

Vingerhoets, Ad. J. J. M., Randolph R. Cornelius, Guus L. Van Heck, and Marleen C. Becht. 2000. Adult crying: A model and review of the literature. Review of General Psychology 4. 354–377.

Weisbuch, Max, Zorana Ivecic and Nalini Ambady. 2009. On being liked on the web and in the “real world”: Consistency in first impression across personal webpages and spontaneous behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology 45. 573–576.

Woods, Judy Shelton. 2001. An investigation of the relationships among emotional intelligence levels, Holland’s academic environments, and community college student’s Internet use. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Mississippi State University. Dissertation Abstracts International 62(5-A), 1813.

Young, Kimberly S. 2007. Cognitive behavior therapy with Internet addicts: Treatment outcomes and implications. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 10. 671–679.

Yousefi, Farideh. 2006. The relationship between emotional intelligence and communication skills in university students. Journal of Iranian Psychologists 3. 5–13.