Two experiments are reported here in which Ss were asked to rate videotapes of a performer reading friendly, neutral and hostile messages in a friendly, neutral or hostile non‐verbal style. These messages and non‐verbal styles had previously been presented independently to a separate group of Ss jor rating, in order to obtain an estimate of their individual strengths in terms of six rating scales, and thus permit a matching of verbal (messages) and non‐verbal (styles) cues in the experiment where both types of cues were presented in combination. The results of both experiments indicate that non‐verbal cues had a greater effect on ratings made on 7‐point scales, such as hostile‐friendly, than verbal cues. The magnitude of this greater effect of non‐verbal cues, however, was dependent on the relative strength of non‐verbal as opposed to verbal cues. In the first experiment, both types of cues were approximately equal in strength when ruted alone; here non‐verbal cues accounted for 12.5 times us much variance us verbal cues, and produced 5.7 times as much shift on the ratitig scales. In the second experiment the verbal cues were much stronger than the non‐verbal cues when rated alone. Here the relative effect of non‐verbal cues in the second experiment was diminished; the ratio of non‐verbal : verbal variance was now 1.67:1. When verbal and non‐verbal signals were inconsistent, the performance was rated as insincere, unstable and confusing ‐ which was not found in earlier experiments on the superior‐inferior dimension.

The Different Functions of Gaze needs look more in a cooperative situation (Exline, Gray, and Schuette, 1965). Couples who scored high on a questionnaire measuring being in love spent somewhat more time in mutual gaze and a higher proportion of their gaze was mutual than for other couples during a discussion in the laboratory (Rubin, 1970). Mehrabian (1966) found that if an experimenter interviewed two Ss, the one whom he looked at more thought that the experimenter liked him. One function of gaze appears to be the communication of interpersonal attitudes. The signal that is sent also depends on the facial expression accompanying the gaze; it may be suggested that the intensity of the attitude communicated is a joint product of the length of gaze and the intensity of the expression. Interpersonal attitudes can also be signalled by looking AWAY, i.e., negative attitudes. However, this is a very uncertain form of communication, since the sender will not know if it has been received unless he looks himself.(ii) Prosodic accompaniments of speech. Speech is accompanied by small movements of the hands, head, and eyes, which supplement the verbal contents by giving emphasis, comment, illustration, and displaying the structure of what is said (Kendon, 1970). These signals can modify or complete the meaning of what is being said, by providing emphasis, providing nonverbal comments, giving illustrations, etc. (Argyle, 1971; Crystal, 1969).If gaze is used for signalling, it follows that a S who is on the wrong side of a one-way screen, and who can see nothing, will still gaze in the direction of the other some of the time. Again the use of gaze for synchronizing can be eliminated by using monologues. Goldberg and Mettee (1969) carried out an experiment in which Ss delivered monologues to another person who was invisible, but who could see the S through a slit. When the other person was there, Ss looked at the slit 8 % of the time and in a normal and deliberate manner; when the other person was NOT there they looked at the slit only 1 % of the time, and in an accidental manner.Hypothesis 2: Ss who can see nothing will still look deliberately in the direction of the other for part of the time. Controlling the Synchronizing of SpeechThis depends on the sending of signals by gaze-shifts, and the perception of these signals by looking at the other. Kendon (1967) found that shifts