f thought, emotion, attitude, and socialization (Boice and Monti, 1982; Halliday, 1973).
This becomes even more important when one realizes that nonverbal communication is often the summation of the ways that humans transmit information on both a conscious and subconscious level (Sears, et.al., 1989, p. 80). In the field of social psychology, moreover, studies of nonverbal communication are extremely important since they help define the distinction between personal expressive and standard communicative actions in the entire process of communication. This, of course, has implications for the therapist, researcher, and lay person alike (Mahl, 1987). Thus, research on nonverbal communication is at least as, if not more, important that standard communication research since there are a myriad of subtleties that often go unnoticed under the rubric of nonverbal behavior.
One of the first presumptions that must be explained about nonverbal communication is the methodological basis for its quantitative and qualitative measurement. Using a series of standard statistical tests, Baesler and Burgoon (1987) established that most nonverbal behaviors can be measured reliably and the codes that are used to establish certain guidelines within nonverbal research are also statistical reliable.
There is a further issue involving the types and quantity of nonverbal camouflage (naturally occurring messages that are consistent) and the way that camouflage may bias the messages given in communication. However, recent research indicates that the nonverbal dominance (i.e. nonverbal behavior taking precedence over verbal behavior) effect was present when the level of camouflage was low and disappeared when the level was high. This leads one to believe that even in the systematic study of nonverbal communication, there must be some limitations and guidelines to follow in the methodological determinant of the problem under scrutiny (Trimboli and Walke...