Does communicating nonverbal disagreement during an opponent's speech affect the credibility of the debater in the background?

Psychological Reports

Volumn 84, Issue 3 PART 1, 1999, Pages 855-861

  Seiter, John S ^a  

^a UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040218187     PISSN: 00332941     EISSN: 1558691X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2466/pr0.1999.84.3.855     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. CHAMBLISS, C. A., & FEENY, N. (1992) Effects of sex of subject, sex of interrupter, and topic of conversation on the perception of interruptions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 1235-1241.
2. FEINSILBER, M. (1996) Be nice, act grown-up: coaches share their wisdom with rivals. The Chattanooga Times, 127(253), October 5, P. A3.
3. GOFFMAN, E. (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Anchor/ Doubleday.
4. LAFRANCE, M. (1992) Gender and interruption: individual infraction or violation of the social order? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 497-512.
5. LEATHERS, D. G. (1997) Successful nonverbal communication: principles and applications. (3rd Ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
6. MCCROSKEY, J. C., HAMILTON, P. R., & WEINER, A. M. (1974) The effect of interaction behavior on source credibility, homophily, and interpersonal attraction. Human Communication Research, 1, 42-52.
7. OFT-ROSE, N. (1989) The importance of ethos. Argumentation and Advocacy: The Journal of the American Forensic Association, 25, 197-199.
8. PFAU, M., & KANG, J. G. (1991) The impact of relational messages on candidate influence in televised political debates. Communication Studies, 42, 114-128.
9. ROBINSON, L. F., & REIS, H. T. (1989) The effects of interruption, gender, and status on interpersonal perception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 141-153.
10. ROSENBERG, H. (1996) After all is said, at least there's still a choice. Los Angeles Times [Home Edition], October 8, P. 1.
11. RUBIN, R. B., PALMGREEN, P., & SYPHER, H. E. (1994) Communication research measures: a sourcebook. New York: Guilford.
12. SCHLENKER, B. R. (1980) Impression management. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
13. SCHROTT, P. R., & LANOUE, D. J. (1992) How to win a televised debate: candidate strategies and voter response in Germany, 1972-87. British Journal of Political Science, 22, 445-467.
14. SEITER, J. S., ABRAHAM, J. A., & NAKAGAMA, B. T. (1998) Split-screen versus single-screen formats in televised debates: does access to an opponent's nonverbal behaviors affect viewers' perceptions of a speaker's credibility? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 491-497.
15. SIGELMAN, L., & SIGELMAN, C. K. (1984) Judgments of the Carter-Reagan debate: the eyes of the beholders. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 624-628.
16. TEDESCHI, J. T., & REISS, M. (1981) Identities, the phenomenal self, and laboratory research. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 3-22.