Exploring Male and Female Non-verbal Forms of Communication Essay Example

Exploring Male and Female Non-verbal Forms of Communication Paper â€Å"We cannot not communicate†Ã¢â‚¬â€this is an established fact in human existence and separates humans from other mammals. Even in silence one sends a multitude of messages: with one’s gaze, facial expression, touch, posture, gestures, and the manner in which one distances himself from the person or persons being communicated with. Equally, one’s choice of clothing and color as well as his timing may say more than what he communicates with his words. Yet as one speaks, more is revealed with the quality of his voice (pitch, tone and intonation), the number and length of his utterances, and the presence or absence of disfluencies in his words and even in his choice of words. Although in most recent studies some communication specialists would separate characteristics attributed to voice as well as word choice as paraverbal communication (Windle and Warren, n. d. ), we will refer to the earliest considerations on the forms of communication—the verbal and the nonverbal (Ehninger, et al, 1982; Pace, Peterson, Burnett, 1979; Becvar, 1974). Whether these nonverbals are sent intentionally or otherwise, one is certain: they serve certain factors: 1) repeating (e. g. vocal utterance and other NVCs that are presumed to repeat what is said), substituting (e. g. shaking the head in disagreement or nodding in acceptance), complementing (to emphasize emotional feelings), regulating, accenting and either deceiving or revealing a person’s intent and real emotions with regards to the communication situation. We will write a custom essay sample on Exploring Male and Female Non-verbal Forms of Communication specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Exploring Male and Female Non-verbal Forms of Communication specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Exploring Male and Female Non-verbal Forms of Communication specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer How much of what one communicates is nonverbal? David Givens (2005) provides an estimate on this phenomenon: Communicating Without Words According to Kramer, 94% of our communication is nonverbal, Jerry (Seinfeld, January 29, 1998). Kramers estimates (like the statistics of anthropologist Ray Birdwhistell [65%; Knapp 1972] and of psychologist Albert Mehrabian [93%; 1971]) are hard to verify. But the proportion of our emotional communication that is expressed apart from words surely exceeds 99%. So much is said even with a very few words that one should have a better understanding of the NVCs to become an effective communicator, and in the process overcome misunderstanding. A number of factors must be considered in understanding this form of communication, namely: 1) the manner in which the nonverbal is sent (either be deliberately or unconsciously transferred); 2) gender (males vs. female); and 3) socio-cultural (Europeans vs. Asians; minority vs. majority). For this purpose, we shall focus our discussion on the effects of gender differences in the use of nonverbal communication. O’Carroll’s (2006) article reviews some of the studies devoted to understanding the effects of gender on an individual’s communication style, including that of Deborah Tannena’s book You Just Don’t Understand: Men and Women in Conversation, which has been in the New York’s list of bestseller for nearly four years and have been translated into 24 languages, implying that certain misconceptions (i. e. girls aren’t more social than boys, neither are they more suggestible, girls aren’t any better at learning off by heart, boys aren’t good at more abstract learning, girls don’t have lower self esteem and that girls lack motivation [Macoby and Jacklin]) why females or males in particular ways while in a communication situation are somehow culturally ingrained in an individual’s pyche. Communicating Without Words Somehow socio-cultural norms (including the roles both assigned and perceived to be attributed to a particular gender) General disparities between male and female communication styles have been described as debate vs. relate, report vs. rapport, or competitive vs. cooperative (Gender Differences in Communication, n. d. ). How these are either revealed or concealed through the nonverbals will likewise be explained. Earlier it was mentioned that several types of nonverbal communication are perceivable in every communicative act. This paper will however focus on only three of them: 1) proxemics or the use of space; 2) kinetics or bodily movements (including gestures; and 3) haptics (touching), which are the more obvious channel of the intended messages, especially in interpersonal communication. There are other levels of communication though: intrapersonal, group and public communication, but for this purpose our discussion will be limited to communication contexts that transpire between two individuals, which centralizes the focus of the message being sent, whether between two sexes or same sex transactions. Proxemics. Just as we communicate with words, so too we transmit messages by placing ourselves in certain spatial relationships, with other persons or objects. The study of these spatial factors—or how we react to the space around us, how we use that space, and how our use of space communicates a particular information—is known as proxemics. Edward T. Hall, a pioneer in the study of proxemics, specified four spatial zones of interpersonal communication (i. e. intimate, personal social and public distance). Communicating Without Words The amount of space a person is allowed in most instances communicates the status of the communicators in a specific communication transaction. Dr. Lilian (1992) concludes that males 1) tend to approach women more closely in terms of their personal space; 2) take up more physical space when sitting or standing, with arms and legs stretched out away from their body; and 3) assume more reclined positions when sitting and lean backward when listening. These observations were likewise echoed in a study conducted by Erica Christoper (n. d. ) Kinetics. The human body is so versatile that it may transmit a number of messages in a single communication transaction. Early researchers delineated body expressions according to the part of the body involved in sending a particular message – facial expression, trunk movements, hand gestures, etc. Empirical evidence also suggests that, in general, 1) women use more head movements than men; 2) smile more often than men; and 3) engages more in eye contact (as cited by Christopher, Ibid). Dr. Lilian on men’s use of facial expression, reports that: 1) They tend to cock their head to the side and look at the other person from an angle when listening; 2) They provide fewer facial expressions in feedback and fewer reactions; 3) They tend to display frowning and squinting when listening; and 4) They stare more in negative interaction (Ibid). Haptics. Everyone uses touch at times to emphasize a point, interrupt another person speaking, or just as a comforting gesture. How this form of nonverbal communication is used and studied given a particular communication situation, has been referred to by communication scholars as haptics. Although women are more likely to use Communicating Without Words touch as a form of communication, men have been found to be more likely to touch women, than women are to touch men (Ibid). These instances, although provide a general observation on male/female communication styles establish the apparent difference in nonverbal use by members of different genders nonetheless. How they differ (relative to social norms and other factors) and to what extent in specific communication context, still need much research. At this point, we rest our case in that we have been provided with the basic understanding on the nonverbal form of communication as affected by gender differences. References: Erica, Christopher. â€Å"Gender Differences in Non-Verbal Behavior: A Global Look at the Use of Passive and Active Nonverbal Cues in Same Sex and Cross-Gender Conversation. † Retrieved 01 April 2009 from Saint Anselm College Website: http://www. anselm. edu/internet/psych/theses/seniors2002/christopher/webpage. ht ml#Abstract Ehninger, Douglas; Gronbeck, Bruce E. ; McKerrow, Ray E. ; Monroe, Alan H. (1982). Principles of Speech Communication, 9th Edition. USA: Scott, Foresman and Company. Givens, David (c1997-2008). Nonverbal Communication. Center for Nonverbal Studies. Retrieved April 01, 2009 from http://members. aol. com/nonverbal2/nvcom. htm He Says, She Says: Closing the Communication Gap Between the Sexes. Dr. Lillian Glass. Putnam, 1992. in â€Å"Gender Differences in Communication,† (n. d. ) Communicating Without Words Retrieved April 01, 2009 from The Ladies Room Website: http://www. geocities. com/Wellesley/2052/genddiff. html O’ Carroll, Eileen. (September 11, 2006). â€Å"Men are from Earth, and so are Women. † Retrieved April 01, 2009 from Anarchistnews. org: http://anarchistnews. org/? q=node/668 Pace, Wayne R. ; Peterson, Brent D. ; Burnett, M. Dallas. (1979). Techniques for Effective Communication. Philippines: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. Windle, Rod and Warren, Suzanne. (n. d. ) â€Å"Communication Skills. † Collaborative Problem Solving and Dispute Resolution in Special Education: Training, an electronic manual Retrieved April 01, 2009 from http://www. directionservice. org/cadre/section4. cfm#Nonverbal%20Messages

Poverty and Inequality in the United States

Poverty and Inequality in the United States Americans are proud of their economic system, believing it provides opportunities for all citizens to have good lives. Their faith is clouded, however, by the fact that poverty persists in many parts of the country. Government anti-poverty efforts have made some progress but have not eradicated the problem. Similarly, periods of strong economic growth, which bring more jobs and higher wages, have helped reduce poverty but have not eliminated it entirely. The federal government defines a minimum amount of income necessary for the basic maintenance of a family of four. This amount may fluctuate depending on the cost of living and the location of the family. In 1998, a family of four with an annual income below $16,530 was classified as living in poverty. The percentage of people living below the poverty level dropped from 22.4 percent in 1959 to 11.4 percent in 1978. But since then, it has fluctuated in a fairly narrow range. In 1998, it stood at 12.7 percent. What is more, the overall figures mask much more severe pockets of poverty. In 1998, more than one-quarter of all African-Americans (26.1 percent) lived in poverty; though distressingly high, that figure did represent an improvement from 1979, when 31 percent of blacks were officially classified as poor, and it was the lowest poverty rate for this group since 1959. Families headed by single mothers are particularly susceptible to poverty. Partly as a result of this phenomenon, almost one in five children (18.9 percent) was poor in 1997. The poverty rate was 36.7 percent among African-American children and 34.4 percent of Hispanic children. Some analysts have suggested that the official poverty figures overstate the real extent of poverty because they measure only cash income and exclude certain government assistance programs such as Food Stamps, health care, and public housing. Others point out, however, that these programs rarely cover all of a familys food or health care needs and that there is a shortage of public housing. Some argue that even families whose incomes are above the official poverty level sometimes go hungry, skimping on food to pay for such things as housing, medical care, and clothing. Still, others point out that people at the poverty level sometimes receive cash income from casual work and in the underground sector of the economy, which is never recorded in official statistics. In any event, it is clear that the American economic system does not apportion its rewards equally. In 1997, the wealthiest one-fifth of American families accounted for 47.2 percent of the nations income, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based research organization. In contrast, the poorest one-fifth earned just 4.2 percent of the nations income, and the poorest 40 percent accounted for only 14 percent of income. Despite the generally prosperous American economy as a whole, concerns about inequality continued during the 1980s and 1990s. Increasing global competition threatened workers in many traditional manufacturing industries, and their wages stagnated. At the same time, the federal government edged away from tax policies that sought to favor lower-income families at the expense of wealthier ones, and it also cut spending on a number of domestic social programs intended to help the disadvantaged. Meanwhile, wealthier families reaped most of the gains from the booming stock market. In the late 1990s, there were some signs these patterns were reversing, as wage gains accelerated especially among poorer workers. But at the end of the decade, it was still too early to determine whether this trend would continue. - Next Article: The Growth of Government in the United States This article is adapted from the book Outline of the U.S. Economy by Conte and Carr and has been adapted with permission from the U.S. Department of State.