Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) >
College of Health and Life Sciences >
Dept of Life Sciences >
Dept of Life Sciences Research Papers >
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title: ||Are there nonverbal cues to commitment? An exploratory study using the zero-acquaintance video presentation paradigm|
|Authors: ||Brown, WM|
|Publication Date: ||2003|
|Publisher: ||Institute for Evolutionary Psychology|
|Citation: ||Brown, W.M., Palameta, B. & Moore, C. (2003). Are there nonverbal cues to commitment? An exploratory study using the zero-acquaintance video presentation paradigm. Evolutionary Psychology: An International Journal of Evolutionary Approaches to Psychology and Behavior, 1, 42-69|
|Abstract: ||Altruism is difficult to explain evolutionarily if subtle cheaters exist in a population (Trivers, 1971). A pathway to the evolutionary maintenance of cooperation is nonverbal altruist-detection. One adaptive advantage of nonverbal altruist-detection is the formation of trustworthy division of labour partnerships (Frank, 1988). Three studies were designed to test a fundamental assumption behind altruistic partner preference models. In the first experiment perceivers (blind with respect to target altruism level) made assessments of video-clips depicting self-reported altruists and self-reported non-altruists. Video-clips were designed with attempts to control for attractiveness, expressiveness, role-playing ability, and verbal content. Overall perceivers rated altruists as more “helpful” than non-altruists. In a second experiment manipulating the payoffs for cooperation, perceivers (blind with respect to payoff condition and altruism level) assessed altruists who were helping others as more “concerned” and “attentive” than non-altruists. However perceivers assessed the same altruists as less “concerned” and “attentive” than non-altruists when the payoffs were for self. This finding suggests that perceivers are sensitive to nonverbal indicators of selfishness. Indeed the self-reported non-altruists were more likely than self-reported altruists to retain resources for themselves in an objective measure of cooperative tendencies (i.e. a dictator game). In a third study altruists and non-altruists’ facial expressions were analyzed. The smile emerged as a consistent cue to altruism. In addition, altruists exhibited more expressions that are under involuntary control (e.g., orbicularis oculi) compared to non-altruists. Findings
Are there nonverbal cues to commitment?
suggest that likelihood to cooperate is signaled nonverbally and the putative cues may be under involuntary control as predicted by Frank (1988).|
|Appears in Collections:||Psychology|
Dept of Life Sciences Research Papers
Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.