The Sourcebook

of Nonverbal Measures

Going Beyond Words

Edited by

VALERIE MANUSOV
University of Washington

2005

LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS Mahwah, New Jersey London

Measurements of Perceived Nonverbal Immediacy

Peter A. Andersen Janis F. Andersen
San Diego State University

INTRODUCTION

Arguably the most central function of nonverbal communication is the communi cation of immediacy: the exchange of warm, involving, affiliative behaviors (Andersen, 1984,1999; Andersen & Guerrero, 1998). The term immediacy charac terizes messages that convey warmth, closeness, and involvement among interact ants (Mehrabian, 1971). Andersen (1985) described four definitional attributes of immediacy behaviors: (a) immediacy behaviors are characterized by approach as opposed to avoidance in interaction; (b) immediacy behaviors signal availability as opposed to unavailability for interaction; (c) immediacy behaviors induce stimu lation and physiological arousal in a receiver; and (d) in virtually all relationships, except those with a history or expectation of conflict, immediacy behaviors are perceived as warm messages that convey interpersonal closeness to another inter actant (Andersen, 1985). Although immediacy can also be communicated verbally, this chapter focuses on the perception of immediacy via nonverbal cues. The power and relational sig nificance of nonverbal immediacy is, in part, the result of the multichannelled na ture of nonverbal communication. Whereas verbal communication generally occupies a single channel, nonverbal communication is typically multichannelled (Andersen, 1999). The multiple messages convey moods, states, and relationship si multaneously and create messages that are compelling, redundant, and seemingly authentic. The following section highlights some of the most notable nonverbal cues associated with immediacy.

113

114

ANDERSEN AND ANDERSEN

CHANNELS OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Numerous studies reveal that nonverbal immediacy is conveyed through a host of discrete yet interdependent channels. Considerable evidence suggests that nonver bal communication cues are processed as a gestalt that results in global perceptions of nonverbal immediacy (see Andersen, 1985,1999). Nonverbal immediacy, like wise, is typically conveyed through proxemic, haptic, oculesic, kinesic, vocalic, and chronemic behavior simultaneously. Although they tend to occur together, each of these channels is discussed separately to show their potential contribution to per ceptions of immediacy. Proxemics Immediacy can be signaled through several proxemic or spatial channels. Most primary is interpersonal distance (i.e., proxemics). Closer distances can be both an indication and a cause of closer interpersonal relationships. Indeed, Hall (1959) suggested that interaction distances define the very nature of relationships. A host of studies have found that closer interpersonal distances convey greater warmth, friendship, and agreement (Egland, Stelzner, Andersen, & Spitzberg, 1997; Jensen & P. Andersen, 1979; Mehrabian & Ksionsky, 1970; Priest & Sawyer, 1967), espe cially when communicated by a rewarding communicator (Burgoon, Manusov, Mineo, ScHale, 1985). Other space-based cues are important contributors to immediacy judgments. Body angle or orientation, for example, can communicate immediacy, with a faceto-face position between interactants usually signaling the most interest, availabil ity, and warmth (Coker & Burgoon, 1987; Patterson, 1973, 1977); conversely, a side-to-side position often gives an interactant "the cold shoulder." Warmth and availability are enhanced typically as well if one interactant does not "tower" over the other. The metaphor "seeing eye to eye" suggests that the same physical plane is associated with greater agreement and acquiescence. Adults often tower over chil dren; tall men sometimes loom over shorter women; disabled individuals in wheel chairs have to crane their neck and strain their ears to interact with a standing adult (Andersen, 1985, 1999). Finally, immediacy is communicated via forward leans. Leaning forward during interaction conveys interest and facilitates interaction. A number of researchers have found that forward leans often convey immediacy (e.g., Burgoon, Buller, Hale, & deTurck, 1984; Coker & Burgoon, 1987; Trout & Rosenfeld, 1980). Haptics Haptic, or tactile, communication is, perhaps, the most immediate form of com munication (see Jones, this volume). Although touch can be used in a variety of ways to comfort, love, sexually arouse, tease, and hurt, the most typical types of

MEASUREMENTS OF PERCEIVED NONVERBAL IMMEDIACY

115

touch in interpersonal interaction send messages of immediacy, warmth, and availability (Andersen, 1999). A host of studies show that individuals who touch more are generally more self-confident, warmer people who enjoy more intimacy and physical closeness (see Andersen's touch avoidance chapter, this volume).
Oculesics

Several oculesic behaviors, including eye contact, gaze, and pupil dilation, can convey immediacy in interpersonal communication. Eye contact or mutual gaze, the most important and most studied form of oculesic behavior, has been called an invitation to communicate. Eye contact is at the heart of the immediacy construct, as it can signal interest, approach, involvement, warmth, and connection simulta neously (Andersen, 1999; Burgoon et al., 1985). It is also represented on virtually every behavioral measure of immediacy (see Guerrero, this volume). Relatively higher levels of gaze and eye contact are associated with more positive perceptions (Burgoon et al., 1985).
Kinesics

A variety of kinesic behaviors may communicate warmth and intimacy, including smiling, nodding, general facial expressiveness, bodily relaxation, increased gestural behavior, and interactional synchrony (Andersen, 1984, 1999). Smiling is another central nonverbal immediacy cue and is represented in most behavioral measures of immediacy (e.g., Andersen, Andersen, & Jensen, 1979; Coker & Burgoon, 1987). Smiles have a biological basis as warm, non-aggressive behaviors and tend to be per ceived cross-culturally as a sign of friendship, warmth, and positive affect (Andersen, 1999; Outsell, 1979). Head nods, particularly by interactants while lis tening, are examples of important components of nonverbal immediacy. Increased facial expressiveness and gestural behavior are also associated with perceptions of in volvement, warmth, and immediacy. Interactional synchrony has been shown simi larly to be an immediacy behavior (Andersen, 1984, 1999; Trees, this volume).
Vocalics and Chronemics

Several elements of the voice can also be components of nonverbal immediacy. At the molar level, voices that are enthusiastic, optimistic, and warm are likely to con vey the most immediacy (Andersen, 1999). At the molecular level, vocal variations in pitch, volume, and rate are associated with greater immediacy (Andersen, 1985). Listener behaviors such as "ah-huh" and "um-hmm," for instance, have been shown across a number of studies to enhance immediacy (Andersen, 1985; Mehrabian, 1971). A number of chronemic behaviors may likewise play an important role in the communication of immediacy. Chief among these is spending time with another

116

ANDERSEN AND ANDERSEN

person (Burgoon & Aho, 1982; Egland et al., 1997). On-time arrival, not seeming rushed, being in the present, appropriate pauses and silences, and sharing talk time are all potentially important chronemic immediacy behaviors (Andersen, 1999). MEASURES OF NONVERBAL IMMEDIACY To facilitate the study of nonverbal immediacy in both instructional and interper sonal contexts, we created a series of (typically) self-report measures of nonverbal immediacy (Andersen, 1979; Andersen, Norton, & Nussbaum, 1981; Andersen & Coussoule, 1980; Coussoule & Andersen, 1979; Jensen & Andersen, 1979). These are summarized in J. Andersen, P. Andersen, and Jensen (1979). One way to mea sure nonverbal immediacy is to code carefully each nonverbal behavior (e.g., Andersen, Guerrero, Duller, & Jorgensen, 1998; Le Poire & Burgoon, 1994). Al though such a method of coding actual immediacy behaviors has obvious advan tages (see White & Sargent, this volume; Bakeman, this volume), it has disadvantages as well: It is inordinately time-consuming to videotape and code multiple channels of nonverbal behavior, and there is no assurance that each be havior is perceived, salient, or meaningful for actual interactions. To complement behavioral coding of actual interaction, or sometimes in its place, Andersen et al. (1979) devised three alternative measurement schemes: (a) The Behavioral Indicants of Immediacy Scale (BII), which measures an interactant's perception of a partner's immediacy (see Appendixes 1 and 3), (b) The Generalized Immediacy Scale (GI),a gestalt measure of general immediacy (see Ap pendixes 2 and 4), and (c) The Rater's Perception of Immediacy Scale (RI) that is used by a trained observer to assess immediacy (see Appendix 5). The Behavioral Indicants of Immediacy Scale (BII) The BII is a comparative, perceptually based measure of 15 nonverbal immediacy behaviors that mirror those discussed earlier in this chapter. The version of the BII used in instructional settings was originally a 28-item instrument but was reduced to a more parsimonious, factor-based, Likert-type instrument that measures percep tions of 15 immediacy/nonimmediacy behaviors (see Appendix 1). The interper sonal version of the BII is a 20-item, factor-based, Likert scale that measures receiver perceptions of 20 immediacy or nonimmediacy behaviors (see Appendix 3) Reliability of the BII. The instructional version of the 15-item BII has yielded consistently high reliability coefficients that ranged from .86 to .95, with a mean of .91 across the entire series of studies (Allen & Shaw, 1990; Andersen, 1979; Andersen et al., 1979; Andersen et al, 1981; Giglio & Lustig, 1987; Sorensen, 1989). Likewise, these studies revealed a test-retest reliability ranging from .74 to .80, sug gesting the high stability of both the immediacy behaviors and their measurement. The 20-item interpersonal version of the BII scale, consisting of a diverse set of be

MEASUREMENTS OF PERCEIVED NONVERBAL IMMEDIACY

117

haviors, has yielded split-half internal reliability coefficients ranging from .70 to .78, with a mean internal reliability of .74 (Andersen et. al., 1979; Jensen & Andersen, 1979; Outsell, 1979). Validity of the BII. The instructional version of the BII has demonstrated considerable concurrent validity with other measure of measures of immediacy. The BII correlated .67 with the GI in two studies (Andersen, 1979; Andersen et al., 1981) and correlated .92 with the RI, a rating of immediacy by an outside observer (Andersen, 1979). The BII has been shown to be a moderate predictor of more posi tive student attitudes toward course content, quality overall communication in the course, positive affect toward the course, behavioral commitment to what was taught, perceived relational solidarity with the instructor, and the probability of en rolling in a related course (Andersen, 1979; Andersen et al., 1981; Giglio & Lustig, 1987). The BII is also highly predictive of overall students' affect toward an instruc tor (Andersen, 1979; Giglio & Lustig, 1987). In addition, the BII is correlated strongly with instructor openness, friendli ness, communication image, animation, impression leaving, relaxation, atten tiveness, and interpersonal drama. Sorensen (1989) reported a substantial correlation between teacher competence and teacher immediacy using a version of the BII. The BII also was found to significantly predict supervisor ratings of af fective learning and general teacher effectiveness (Allen & Shaw, 1990). The inter personal version of the BII was found to be a significant predictor of interpersonal credibility, attraction, homophily, solidarity, and opinion leadership (Jensen & Andersen, 1979). The Generalized Immediacy Scale (GI) The generalized immediacy scale assesses a person's gestalt global impressions of a person's nonverbal immediacy. Typically it has been used to assess the immediacy of an instructor (see Appendix 2) or an interpersonal interactant (see Appendix 4). Reliability of the GI. Internal reliability estimates for the nine-item instruc tional version of the GI are extremely high, ranging from .95 to .98, with a mean in ternal reliability estimate across studies of .96 (Allen & Shaw, 1990; Andersen, 1979; Andersen et al., 1979; Andersen & Withrow, 1981; Carrell & Menzel, 2001; Giglio& Lustig, 1987). Several studies revealed a test-retest reliability ranging from .81 to .84, indicating both the trait-like nature of instructional immediacy and consider able stability for the scales (e.g., Andersen, 1979; Andersen et al., 1979). A shorter 5-item version of the GI yielded internal reliability estimates that ranged from .89 to .96 (Kearney, Plax, & Wendt-Wasco, 1985). The nine-item interpersonal version of the GI scale has been found to have consistently high coefficient alpha reliability es timates between .94 and .97, with a mean across six studies of .96 (Andersen et al., 1979; Gutsell, 1979; Jensen & Andersen, 1979).

118

ANDERSEN AND ANDERSEN

Validity of the Gl. The instructional version of the GI has demonstrated con current validity with other measures of immediacy. The GI had a .67 correlation with the BI in two studies (Andersen, 1979; Andersen et al., 1981). The GI has also shown considerable predictive validity across a number of studies. The GI has been shown to be highly predictive of more positive student attitudes toward course con tent, affective learning, quality overall communication in the course, positive affect toward the instructor, positive affect toward the course, behavioral commitment to what was taught, perceived relational solidarity with the instructor, and the proba bility of enrolling in a related course (Andersen, 1979; Andersen et al., 1981; Andersen & Withrow, 1981; Giglio & Lustig, 1987). These findings have held for both face-to-face and mediated instructional environments (Andersen, 1979; Andersen & Withrow, 1981; Carrell & Menzel, 2001). Research using the GI has shown that face-to-face lectures are a more immediate form of communication than are video lectures that, in turn, were seen as more immediate than a Powerpoint presentation (Carrell & Menzel, 2001). The GI has significant positive correlations with a number of instructor char acteristics including openness, friendliness, communicator image, animation, impression leaving, relaxation, attentiveness, and dramatic style (Andersen et al., 1981). The GI has also been found to be related to perceived student learning (Al len & Shaw, 1990) but not to actual student learning (Andersen, 1979). The GI has been found to significantly predict supervisor ratings of affective student learn ing, student behavioral commitment, and general teacher effectiveness (Allen & Shaw, 1990). Using a shortened version of the GI, Kearney et al. (1985), for exam ple, found a relationship between immediacy and a host of instructional effective ness variables including positive affect toward the course, improved course content, instructor ratings engaging in practices recommended in the course, and enrolling in another, similar course. These findings held in both people-oriented and technically oriented classes. Likewise, Jensen and Andersen (1979) reported that the interpersonal version of the GI scale is highly associated with a number of interpersonal perceptions of credibility, attraction, homophily, opinion leader ship, and interpersonal solidarity, demonstrating its predictive validity. Raters' Perception of Immediacy Scale (Rl) The RI was designed to be used by observers in an instructional context to measure the nonverbal immediacy behaviors of teachers (see Appendix 5). Reliability of the Rl. The original studies of the 11 -item RI conducted in in structional context showed interrater reliability coefficients that ranged from .79 to .97, and the split-half reliability coefficient was .82 (Andersen, 1979; Andersen etal., 1979). In one study, modifications of the BII and GI for use by raters yielded reli ability estimates for each scale of .93 (Kay & Christophel, 1995).

MEASUREMENTS OF PERCEIVED NONVERBAL IMMEDIACY

119

Validity of the Rl. The RI demonstrated considerable concurrent validity with other measures of nonverbal immediacy. The independently assessed RI cor related .92 with student perceptions of nonverbal immediacy as assessed by the BII (Andersen, 1979).A version of BII and GI for use by raters found that nonverbal im mediacy of managers significantly predicted motivation by employees (Kay & Christophel, 1995).
CONCLUSION

Although developed nearly 25 years ago, the five measures reported in this study are still among the most reliable and valid measures of perceived nonverbal imme diacy available. The BII is an excellent measure of gestalt perceptions of immediacy and is the most reliable measure of its type. It has been used with great success in studies of instructional immediacy. The interpersonal version of the BII has ac ceptable reliabilities and is one of several good choices available to researchers to assess interpersonal immediacy. The GI is an outstanding measure of gestalt per ceptions of nonverbal immediacy, with mean reliability estimates of .96 across studies in both instructional and interpersonal contexts. Both the instructional and interpersonal GI have established validity and continue to be excellent mea sures of gestalt impression of nonverbal immediacy. REFERENCES
Allen, J. L, & Shaw, D. H. (1990). Teachers' communication behaviors and supervisors' evaluation of instruction in elementary and secondary classrooms. Communication Education, 39, 308-322. Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. InD. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 543-559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Andersen, J. F., Andersen, P. A., & Jensen, A. D. (1979). The measurement of nonverbal immediacy. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 7, 153-180. Andersen, J. F., Norton, R. W., & Nussbaum,}. F. (1981). Three investigations exploring relationships between perceived teacher communication behaviors and student learning. Communication Educa tion, 30, 377-392. Andersen, J. F., & Withrow, J. G. (1981). The impact of lecturer nonverbal expressiveness on improving mediated instruction. Communication Education, 30, 342-353. Andersen, P. A. (1984, April). An arousal-valence model of nonverbal immediacy exchange. Paper pre sented to the Central States Speech Association Convention, Chicago, IL. Andersen, P. A. (1985). Nonverbal immediacy in interpersonal communication. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 1-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Andersen, P. A. (1999). Nonverbal communication: Forms and functions. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Andersen, P. A., & Coussoule, A. R. (1980). The perceptual world of the communication apprehensive: The effect of communication apprehension and interpersonal gaze on interpersonal perception. Communication Quarterly, 28, 44-54. Andersen, P. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (1998). The bright side of relational communication. Interpersonal warmth as a social emotion. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Communications and Emo tion (pp. 305-331). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Andersen, P. A., Guerrero, L. K., Buller, D. B., & Jorgensen, P. F. (1998). An empirical comparison of three theories of nonverbal immediacy exchange. Human Communication Research, 24, 501535.

120

ANDERSEN AND ANDERSEN

Burgoon, J. K., & Aho, L. (1982). Three field experiments on the effects of violations of conversational distance. Communication Monographs, 49, 71-88. Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Hale, J. L, & deTurck, J. L. (1984). Relational messages associated with im mediacy behaviors. Human Communication Research, 10, 351-371. Burgoon, J. K., Manusov, V., Mineo, P., & Hale, J. L. (1985). Effects of gaze on hiring, credibility, attrac tion, and relational message interpretation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 9, 133-146. Carrell, L. J., & Menzel, K. E. (2001). Variations in learning, motivation, and perceived immediacy be tween live and distance education classrooms. Communication Education, 50, 230240. Coker, D. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (1987). The nature of conversational involvement and nonverbal encod ing patterns. Human Communication Research, 13, 463494. Coussoule, A. R., & Andersen, P. A. (1979, November). The perceptual world of the communication ap prehensive: The effect of communication apprehension and interpersonal gaze on interpersonal percep tion. Paper presented to the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, TX. Egland, K. L., Stelzner, M. A., Andersen, P. A., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1997). Perceived understanding, non verbal communication, and relational satisfaction. In J. Aitken & L. Shedletsky (Eds.), Intrapersonal communicationprocesses (pp. 386-395). Annandale, VA: The Speech Communication Association. Giglio, K., & Lustig, M. W. (1987, February). Teacher immediacy and student expectations as predictors of learning. Paper presented to the Western Communication Association, Salt Lake City, UT. Outsell, L. M. (1979). Perceptual and behavioral responses to smiling. Unpublished masters thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. New York: Doubleday. Jensen, A. D., & Andersen, P. A. (1979, May). The relationship among communication traits, communica tion behaviors, and interpersonal perception variables. Paper presented to the International Commu nication Association, Philadelphia, PA. Kay, B., & Christophel, D. M. (1995). The relationships among manager communication openness, nonverbal immediacy, and subordinate motivation. Communication Research Reports, 12,200-205. Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., & Wendt-Wasco, N. J. (1985). Teacher immediacy for affective learning in di vergent college classes. Communication Quarterly, 33, 6174. Le Poire, B. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (1994). Two contrasting explanations of involvement violations: Expec tancy violations theory versus discrepancy arousal theory. Human Communication Research, 20, 590-591. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Mehrabian, A., & Ksionsky, S. (1970). Models for affiliative and conformity behavior. Psychological Bul letin, 74, 110-126. Patterson, M. L. (1973). Stability of nonverbal immediacy behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Pscyhology, 7, 97-101. Patterson, M. L. (1977). Interpersonal distance, affect, and equilibrium theory. Journal of Social Psychol ogy, 101, 205-214. Priest, R. F., & Sawyer, J. (1967). Proximity and peership: Bases of balance in interpersonal attraction. The American Journal of Sociology, 72, 633-649. Sorensen, G. (1989). The relationships among teachers' self-disillusive statements, students' percep tions and affective learning. Communication Education, 38, 259-279. Trout, D. L., & Rosenfeld, H. M. (1980). The effect of postural lean and body congruence on the judg ment of psychotherapeutic rapport. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 4, 176-190.

MEASUREMENTS OF PERCEIVED NONVERBAL IMMEDIACY

121

APPENDIX A Behavioral Indicants Of Immediacy (Bll) Scale: Instructional Context Please mark these scales to indicate how you perceive your instructor in the teach ing role. Please mark the following statements to indicate whether you: (7) strongly agree; (6) agree; (5) moderately agree; (4) are undecided; (3) moderately disagree; (2) disagree; or (1) strongly disagree. Please record the number of your response in the spaces provided beside each statement. There is no correct answer. Simply record your perceptions. Some of the questions may seem similar, but this is necessary. * 1. This instructor engages in more eye contact with me when teaching than most other instructors. 2. Students discuss less in this class than in most other classes. *3. This instructor has a more tense body position while teaching than most other instructors. *4. This instructor gestures more while teaching than most other instructors. *5. This instructor engages in less movement while teaching than most other instructors. 6. This instructor sits in a student desk less than most other instructors when teaching. 7. This instructor touches students less than most other instructors when teaching. *8. This instructor has a more relaxed body position while teaching than most other instructors. *9. This instructor directs his/her body position more toward students while teaching than most other instructors. 10. This instructor stands in front of the classroom less than most other instructors while teaching. * 11. This instructor smiles more during class than most other instructors. 12. This instructor dresses less informally than most other instructors when teaching. *13. This instructor engages in less eye contact with me when teaching than most. 14. This instructor spends less time with students before and after class than most instructors. 15. This instructor touches students more than most other instructors when teaching. 16. Students discuss more in this class than in most other classes. *17. This instructor is more vocally expressive while teaching than most other instructors. *18. This instructor is more distant from students while teaching than most other instructors.

122

ANDERSEN AND ANDERSEN

*19. This instructor directs his/her body position less toward students while teaching than most other instructors. *20. This instructor gestures less while teaching than most other instructors. *21. This instructor engages in more movement while teaching than most other instructors. 22. This instructor sits in a student desk more often than most other instructors while teaching. 23. This instructor dresses more informally than most other instructors when teaching. 24. This instructor stands in front of the classroom more than most other instructors while teaching. *25. This instructor is less vocally expressive while teaching than most other instructors. *26. This instructor smiles less during class than most other instructors. 27. This instructor is less distant from students than most other instructors while teaching. 28. This instructor spends more time with students before and after class than most other instructors. Scoring Instructions * These items constitute the 15-item behavioral indicants of immediacy scale. To obtain an immediacy score, use this formula: 1. Total the subject's response for the following scale items: 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 17, 21. Call this X. 2. Total the subject's response for the following scale items: 3, 5, 13, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26. Call this Y. 3. Immediacy score = X - Y + 56.

MEASUREMENTS OF PERCEIVED NONVERBAL IMMEDIACY

123

APPENDIX B Generalized Immediacy (Gl) Scale: Instructional Context Immediate behaviors are those communication behaviors that reduce distance be tween people. Immediate behaviors may actually decrease the physical distance, or they may decrease the psychological distance. The more immediate a person is, the more likely he/she is to communicate at close distances, smile, engage in eye con tact, use direct body orientations, use overall body movement and gestures, touch others, relax and be vocally expressive. In other words, we might say that an imme diate person is perceived as overtly friendly and warm. Please place an "X" in each of the following scales to indicate your agreement with the following statement: In your opinion, the teaching style of your instructor is very immediate.
agree false incorrect wrong yes : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : disagree true correct right no

Please place an "X" in each of the following scales to indicate the word that best de scribes the teaching style of your instructor:
immediate cold unfriendly close : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : not immediate warm friendly distant

Scoring Instructions 1. Number each subject's response by numbering each scale from left to right (1-7). 2. Total the subject's response for the following scales: false/true, wrong/right, cold/warm, and unfriendly/friendly. Call this X. 3. Total the subject's response for the other five scales. Call this Y. 4. Generalized immediacy score = X - Y + 40.

124

ANDERSEN AND ANDERSEN

APPENDIX C Behavioral indicants Of Immediacy (Bll) Scale: Interpersonal Context Directions Please complete the following scales to indicate how you see the relationship be tween you and the other person. Please mark the following statements to indicate whether you: (7) strongly agree; (6) agree; (5) moderately agree; (4) are undecided; (3) moderately disagree; (2) disagree; or (1) strongly disagree. Please record the number of your response in the spaces provided beside each statement. There is no correct answer. Simply record your perceptions. Some of the questions may seem similar, but this is necessary. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. *9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. * 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. This person engages in more eye contact with me than most other people. This person's body is more tense than most other people. This person gestures more than most other people. This person engages in less movement than most other people. This person touches me less than most other people usually do. This person has a more relaxed body position than most other people. This person directs his/her body position more toward me than most other people usually do. This person smiles more than most other people do. This person dresses more formally than most other people. This person engages in less eye contact with me than most other people. This person seems eager to spend time talking with me. This person touches me more than most other people. This person is more vocally expressive than most other people. This person seems more distant from me than most other people. This person directs his/her body position less toward me than most This person gestures less than most other people. This person engages in more movement than most other people. This person dresses more informally than most other people. This person is less vocally expressive than most other people. This person smiles less than most other people. This person seemed less distant from me than most other people. This person seemed reluctant to spend time talking to me.

Dropped from scale because of failure to load above 40.

MEASUREMENTS OF PERCEIVED NONVERBAL IMMEDIACY

125

Scoring Instructions 1. Total the subject's response for the following scale items: 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 17, 21. Call this X. 2. Total the subject's response for the following scale items: 2, 4, 5, 10, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22. Call this Y. 3. Immediacy score = X- Y + 80.

APPENDIX D Generalized Immedicacy (Gl) Scale: Interpersonal Context Immediate behaviors are those communication behaviors that reduce distance be tween people. Immediate behaviors may actually decrease the physical distance, or they may decrease the psychological distance. The more immediate a person is, the more likely they are to communicate at close distance, smile engage in eye contact, use direct body orientations, use overall body movement and gestures, touch oth ers, relax, and be vocally expressive. In other words, we might say that an immedi ate person is perceived as overtly friendly and warm. Is, in your opinion, the conversational style of the other person is very immedi ate? Please place and "X" in each of the following scales to indicate your agreement with the above statement.
agree false incorrect wrong yes : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : disagree true correct right no

Please place an "X" in each of the following scales to indicate the word that best de scribes the conversational style of the other person:
immediate cold unfriendly close : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : not immediate warm friendly distant

126

ANDERSEN AND ANDERSEN

Scoring Instructions 1. Number each subject's response by numbering each scale from left to right (1-7). 2. Total the subject's response for the following scales: false/true, wrong/right, cold/warm, and unfriendly/friendly. Call this X. 3. Total the subject's response for the other five scales. Call this Y. 4. Generalized immediacy score = X - Y + 40.