Nonverbal and Verbal Communication in "Involved" and "Casual" Relationships among College Students
Two hundred thirty three never married undergraduates at a large southeastern university completed a 45 item questionnaire designed to assess nonverbal and verbal communication differences in "involved" and "casual" dating relationships. Findings revealed that "involved" daters, females, and whites are significantly more likely to be concerned about nonverbal communication than "casual" daters, males, and blacks. Implications for university students, faculty, and counselors are suggested. ********** "My wife said I don't listen to her ... at least I think that's what she said" quipped humorist Lawrence Peter. His words reflect the concern of this study--communication. Previous research has documented that communication is the most frequent problem in dating (Knox, Zusman, and Custis, 1988). Researchers have consistently demonstrated an interest in nonverbal communication. Argyle (1987) listed the functions of nonverbal communication as informational, regulation of interaction, intimacy, social control, and the service-task function (e.g. scripted interactions in secondary group interactions such as a physician and patient the physician can wear a white coat, act professionally, and ask personal body questions). Rashottte (1997) identified 98 nonverbal behaviors while L'Abate and Bagarossi (1993) emphasized the importance of nonverbal communication and relationship satisfaction. They noted that nonverbal parts of a message carry more weight than verbal messages when these two components conflict. For example, if Kimberly tells Carl "I love you" but crosses her arms, stands back, and looks at the floor when she says these words, Carl is likely to feel that Kimberly really doesn't mean what she says. The focus of the current study was on the differences in nonverbal and verbal communication between partners in two categories of college students--the "involved" (emotionally involved in a reciprocal love relationship with one person) and "casually" dating (dating different people). Sample and Methods The data consisted of responses to a forty-five item questionnaire anonymously completed by two hundred and thirty-three undergraduates at a large south-eastern university. Over two-thirds (67.3%) of the respondents were female; 32.7% were male. In regard to relationship status, most (56.6%) were casual daters with 43.4% dating someone exclusively, engaged, or married (referred to as involved). Whites comprised 78% of the sample, blacks 20%, with 2% reporting mixed race/heritage. Findings & Discussion Analysis of the data revealed several significant findings: 1. Involved daters value nonverbal communication more than casual daters. When students were asked "How important do you think nonverbal communication is in a relationship?" with 1 = "very important" and 10 = "not important at all" (so that the lower the score the greater the importance) the mean value of the "involved" and "casual" daters was 3.08 vs. 3.75, respectively (p 2. Involved daters work on nonverbal behavior more than casual daters. Not only did the involved respondents value nonverbal behavior in the abstract, they were more likely (p 3. Partner of involved works on nonverbal communication more. Involved respondents, in contrast to casual daters, felt that they were not alone in working on nonverbal behavior. …