How Nonverbal Cues Can Increase Persuasion

Nonverbal cues are an inherent component of most persuasive appeals. We use regulatory-fit theory as a framework for understanding the effect of nonverbal cues on a message’s effectiveness, and as a foundation for developing a new persuasion technique. We propose that when the nonverbal cues of a message source sustain the motivational orientation of the recipient, the recipient experiences regulatory fit and feels right, and that this experience influences the message’s effectiveness. Experimental results support these predictions. Participants experiencing regulatory fit (promotion-focus participants viewing messages delivered in an eager nonverbal style, prevention-focus participants viewing messages delivered in a vigilant nonverbal style) had more positive attitudes toward a message’s topic and greater intentions to behave in accordance with its recommendation than did participants experiencing nonfit. Feeling right was also greater for participants experiencing fit than for those experiencing nonfit and was associated with greater message effectiveness. Regulatory-fit theory provides a framework for making precise predictions about when and for whom a nonverbal cue will affect persuasion. How can gestures and other nonverbal cues be used by the source of a persuasive message to make the appeal more effective? Using regulatory-fit theory to answer this question, we introduce a new persuasion technique that relates the source’s nonverbal cues to the message recipient’s motivational orientation. We hypothesize that when there is fit between a recipient’s orientation toward the message and the source’s nonverbal style, the recipient will ‘‘feel right’’ and the message will be more effective. The idea of relating a source’s nonverbal cues to recipients’ orientations is inspired by recent research showing that written messages can be framed in ways that create fit and increase their effectiveness (Cesario, Grant, & Higgins, 2004; Lee & Aaker, 2004). In the present research, we considered whether the source can use nonverbal cues to physically deliver an identical message in different ways in order to fit different recipients’ orientations. In contrast, most research on nonverbal influence has predicted main effects of nonverbal cues without regard to characteristics of the recipient. NONVERBAL INFLUENCE IN PERSUASION AND IMPRESSION FORMATION Among the potential mechanisms by which nonverbal cues could influence persuasion, their effect on recipients’ impressions of the source has received the most attention. Research in this area, and on impression formation generally, typically assumes that the effects of nonverbal cues are independent of the message’s context, the message’s content, and recipients’ characteristics. Consider speech rate, the most commonly researched nonverbal cue. There has been consensus that faster rates increase message effectiveness by increasing positive impressions of the source’s credibility, confidence, or competence. Reflecting the strength of this consensus, Brown (1980) referred to this finding as having ‘‘little surprise value’’ (p. 294). When context dependency is found, it is treated as an aberration, rather than as reflecting meaningful underlying mechanisms (for exceptions, see Hall, 1980; Siegman & Reynolds, 1982; Street, Brady, & Putnam, 1983). Moreover, conditional effects are often actively prevented through the use of language-free or nonnatural speech samples stripped of situational information (e.g., ‘‘words’’ constructed by combining syllables from different languages, repetition of single sentences). The idea that nonverbal cues should have uniform effects can be criticized from a number of perspectives emphasizing the fundamental role of context in the production and identification of Address correspondence to Joseph Cesario, Psychology Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823, e-mail: cesario@ msu.edu. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Volume 19—Number 5 415 Copyright r 2008 Association for Psychological Science nonverbal cues (e.g., the situationist perspective; Fernández-Dols & Ruiz-Belda, 1995a, 1995b; see Cesario, 2006). For instance, although a fast speech rate may frequently convey confidence, it could also convey recklessness in certain situations—as when the source is discussing safety issues, such as those related to nuclear power. In the case of persuasion, the way nonverbal cues make a recipient feel could depend on contextual factors, and the motivational orientation or concerns of the recipient may be one such factor. Rather than being a direct function of nonverbal cues, whether or not recipients feel right about a persuasive attempt could depend on whether the cues fit their orientation during their reception of the message. Regulatory-fit theory provides the theoretical underpinning for this proposal. REGULATORY FIT AND FEELING RIGHT Regulatory-fit theory considers the importance of the relation between a person’s orientation to or concerns about an activity and how he or she engages with that activity (Higgins, 2000). The same activity can be pursued by people who have different orientations and use different behavioral strategies, and a given orientation is often associated with preferred strategies. For example, in choosing a restaurant to eat at, someone high in need for cognition would prefer to thoroughly consider many possibilities, whereas someone high in need for closure would prefer to make a quick decision. In terms of regulatory-focus theory (Higgins, 1998), which we highlight in this article, promotion-focus people, who represent goals as hopes and aspirations, prefer eager, advancement strategies of engaging with tasks; prevention-focus people, who represent goals as duties and obligations, prefer vigilant, cautious strategies of engaging with tasks. Regulatory fit is experienced when individuals use those strategies of engaging with a task that they prefer given their current regulatory orientation, because using preferred strategies sustains (i.e., fits) the orientation, whereas using nonpreferred strategies disrupts it. When individuals experience regulatory fit, they feel right about what they are doing (Cesario, Higgins, & Scholer, 2008; Higgins, 2005, 2006; Lee & Aaker, 2004), and this experience of feeling right can inform their evaluation of different aspects of the activity (Avnet & Higgins, 2006; Higgins, Idson, Freitas, Spiegel, & Molden, 2003). Regarding persuasion, research has shown that eager framings of written messages (describing the gains of an advocated position) create regulatory fit for promotion-focus recipients, whereas vigilant framings (describing nonlosses of the same position) create fit for preventionfocus recipients (Cesario et al., 2004; Lee & Aaker, 2004). THE CURRENT RESEARCH The research reported here addressed the following question: Can a message source use nonverbal cues to vary the delivery style of a given message in a way that produces regulatory fit in message recipients with different orientations? In particular, if the source uses nonverbal cues to convey eagerness or vigilance, might this produce regulatory fit for promotion-focus and prevention-focus recipients, respectively? To answer this question, it was necessary to convey nonverbally the experiential states of eager advancement and vigilant caution. We accomplished this by systematically varying the nonverbal cues used by a message source, creating two videotaped versions of the same persuasive message, one with an eager delivery style and one with a vigilant delivery style. Advancement implies eager movement forward, so eagerness should be conveyed by gestures that involve animated, broad opening movements; hand movements openly projecting outward; forward-leaning body positions; fast body movement; and fast speech rate. Caution implies vigilant carefulness, so vigilance should be conveyed by gestures that show precision; ‘‘pushing’’ motions representing slowing down; slightly backward-leaning body positions; slower body movement; and slower speech rate. We took a ‘‘constellation’’ approach in creating these delivery styles, using multiple nonverbal cues together to convey each one. Figure 1 provides examples. It is important to note that the content of the message was identical in the two videos. The current study tested two predictions. First, we predicted that regulatory fit produced by nonverbal cues would result in greater message effectiveness, with the eager delivery style being more effective for promotion-focus than for prevention-focus recipients, and the vigilant delivery style being more effective for prevention-focus than for promotion-focus recipients. Second, we predicted that regulatory fit would result in greater experiences of feeling right, and that greater experiences of feeling right would be associated with greater message effectiveness.