Printed Page 233

Defining Relationships

You’re sitting at a local diner, eating lunch and people-watching. Two couples are sitting in nearby booths. One couple sits with one partner very close to the other. They cuddle, touch, and occasionally kiss. When they’re not touching, they’re smiling and gazing at each other. The couple sitting at the next booth over is behaving very differently. The man sits up tall and straight, his arms extended on both sides of the table. He glares at his partner, interrupts her, and doesn’t look at her when she’s talking. Her eyes are downcast, her hands are folded in her lap, and she speaks softly. What does the nonverbal communication of each of these couples tell you about the degree of intimacy in their relationship? The partners’ relative dominance? A final function of nonverbal communication is to define the nature of our interpersonal relationships. In particular, we use our nonverbal communication to create intimacy and define dominance or submissiveness in our relationships (Burgoon & Hoobler, 2002).

Articulacy of fingers, the language of the deaf. Who taught you to write on my back? Who taught you to use your hands as branding irons? You have scored your name into my shoulders, referenced me with your mark. The pads of your fingers have become printing blocks, you tap a message on to my skin, tap meaning into my body. Your Morse code interferes with my heart beat. I had a steady heart before I met you, I relied upon it, it had seen active service and grown strong. Now you alter its pace with your rhythm, you play upon me, drumming me taut. (p. 89)

But intimacy isn’t defined solely through touch. Physical closeness, shared gaze, soft voices, relaxed postures, sharing of personal objects, and, of course, spending time together—each of these nonverbal behaviors highlights and enhances intimacy. Consider just a few specifics. Smiling and gazing are associated with intimacy (Floyd & Burgoon, 1999), something vividly illustrated in the Beaver family photo in our chapter opening. Individuals share more personal space with intimates and liked others than with strangers, and use proximity to convey affection (Floyd & Morman, 1999). Studies that have instructed people to communicate liking to others have found that the primary way people do so is through increasing gaze, smiling, and leaning forward (Palmer & Simmons, 1995). Conversely, one can communicate lack of intimacy and greater formality through distance, lack of eye contact, decreased vocal expressiveness, precise articulation, and tense postures (Burgoon & Hoobler, 2002).

In general, more intimate relationships—particularly romantic bonds—show higher levels of nonverbal involvement across all of the codes (more eye contact, more touch, more smiling, closer distance, and so forth). For romantic couples, the level of nonverbal involvement is a direct indicator of the relationship’s health (Patterson, 1988). Think back to the highly engaged couple in the diner booth. Although you don’t know who they are, what they’re saying, or what culture they’re from, you could reasonably conclude that they have a healthy relationship, based solely on their nonverbal behavior.

In contrast, submissiveness is the willingness to allow others to exert power over us. We communicate submissiveness to others nonverbally by engaging in behaviors that are opposite to those that express dominance, such as taking up less space; letting others control our time, space, and possessions; smiling more; and permitting others to interrupt us.