Implications of a Neurophysiological Approach for the Study of a Nonverbal Communication

Abstract

This article reviews the neurophysiological literature as it pertains to nonverbal communication. It provides an overview of research on the functionof the cerebral hemispheres as related to communication, with particular emphasis on the right hemisphere where most nonverbal communication is processed. Limitations of the neurophysiological approach are discussed. Finally, implications of the neurophysiological approach are discussed for: (1) defining nonverbal communication, (2) the phylogenetic development of communication in humans, and (3) communication research and theory.

Teachers’ reports of students’ nonverbal communication in the classroom: A developmental study in grades K‐12

“…This is particularly true for the oculesics and kinesic variables. Researchers have noted that nonverbal communication predated verbal communication both in the history of mankind and in the development of every child (Andersen, Garrison, & Andersen, 1979;Bass & Weinstein, 1971;Siegman & Feldstein, 1978). Thus children may arrive at school with a fairly well developed system of communication that is altered less by the school experience than language development.…”

Biological Views of Communication

“…In 1991, Stacks et al wrote a chapter on what they called the ''biosocial'' approach to communication. They had moved away from the neurophysiological view of Andersen et al (1979) because they felt there was more to the view than just neuroscience. In 1995, Aitken and Shedletsky co-edited a book entitled Intrapersonal Communication Processes (Hickson & Stacks, 1995;Hickson & Stacks, 2009).…”

“…2 The insider argument among scientists was whether the two brain hemispheres of humans were created in such a way that one was more dominant than the other. Some of the early discussion in the discipline of communication was found in the work of Andersen, Garrison, and Andersen (1979). To say that this work triggered an onslaught of research on the brain and communication would be an overstatement, but a few researchers began looking at this perspective.…”

When one cannot not communicate: A challenge to motley's traditional communication postulates

“…Scholars refer to these behaviors as spontaneous (Buck, 1982;, analogic (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967), iconic (Burgoon, 1985;Ekman & Friesen, 1969;Smith, 1971), phatic (Sebeok, 1962), or ritualized (Cronkhite, 1986). These behaviors are processed in the right brain hemisphere (Andersen, in press;Andersen, Garrison, & Andersen, 1979;Buck, 1982;, are encoded and decoded as a multichanneled gestalt (Andersen, 1986), involve syncretic cognition (Buck, 1982;, and include most nonverbal messages as well as some verbal messages. Most analogic communication is preconsciously or semiautomatically sent and received.…”