- Training and Coaching since 1988
Summer is good for Love. It is a well-known fact.
Established couples renew their feelings thanks to the free time, relaxation and little vices they can indulge in during the holiday period.
Those who are single and looking for their soul mate can instead show off their skills in the art of courtship.
But what are the non-verbal indicators – serious and objective – that reveal to us the real interest of the other person, and which ones should put us on the alert?
“Biting one’s lips”, “stroking one’s hair”, “showing one’s wrists” or “toned muscles”, or “crossing one’s legs in the direction of the other when sitting down”… manuals on non-verbal communication and the internet are often full of generalised but scientifically unverified hoaxes that tend to reduce the complex world of emotions and behaviour to simple “if he/she makes this gesture… then he/she likes you” inferences.
When it comes to emotions and feelings, it is often impossible to deduce from a single gesture, a posture, or a single approach of the interlocutor (proxemics), a sure good predisposition to us and our courtship, that is, a ‘pass’ that indicates we should continue in what we are doing because it pleases the other person.
Let’s try to examine what is true and what we should consider less reliable in the ‘body language’ world associated with the courtship phases.
Today, in this second part of the article, we will discuss proxemics and the use of the gaze. Here we reveal the main truths and false myths related to the ‘non-verbal language of love’.
The PROSEEMICS
Edward T. Hall coined the term proxemics, a discipline that studies the space and distances between interlocutors during a communication. Hall observed that the distance between people (in psychological terms: affinity, complicity, degree of confidence, interpersonal feeling) correlated with physical distance. Hall defined and measured four interpersonal ‘zones’:
– Social distance (1 to 3.5 metres): this is the distance used during communication between acquaintances, or in the formal teacher-pupil relationship (very limited confidence and informality, communicative interactions however frequent).
– The public distance (over 3.5 metres): this is the distance usually used in interactions between complete strangers.
– The personal distance (45 to 120 cm): this is the distance that characterises communication between friends.
– Intimate distance (0 to 45 cm): this is the distance between people in close intimacy and trust (think of lovers).
Edward Hall emphasises, however, that these distances are ideal, influenced by culture, and not universal: the optimal closeness in which a person feels comfortable with other people is often subjective, varies according to different degrees of intimacy, and is strongly influenced by factors related to the person’s temperament and culture. For example: people of Arab ethnicity and culture prefer to stand very close to each other when conversing; North Americans, Europeans and Asians, on the other hand, generally maintain a greater distance during a communicative interaction; in India, social norms dictate that people of different castes must maintain specific inviolable distances.
The social norm is that people of different castes must maintain specific inviolable distances.
According to Hall, gender also affects proxemics: males are more comfortable to the side of a person, while females are more comfortable in front of them. Substantial differences also exist at the level of intra-gender physical contact: females are generally more prone to proximity and physical contact, whereas males are often refractory to displays of affection involving unsolicited physical contact.
According to the author, the violation of these ‘zones’ by one of the interlocutors leads to a series of behavioural and emotional reactions in the other: the person who sees himself being ‘invaded’ may feel immediate discomfort (the reaction is ancestral: it is due to the activation of the Sympathetic Nervous System, which triggers often unconscious ‘attack-escape’ mechanisms); the person may try to conceal the annoyance he or she may feel by acting as if nothing were the matter (but at the muscular level a postural and facial stiffening may be observed), or he or she may react: ‘attack’ the person and firmly demand respect for distance, or ‘escape’, moving back a few steps, discreetly (so as not to offend the other).
But if we do not have any a priori information about a person, do not know his ethnicity or what kind of distance he likes in case we have to interact with him, how should we behave? If we notice a facial expression of contempt, disgust or anger, who is to say that this facial expression is due not so much to what we say to the person (or how we say it to him), but to the context in which the conversation itself takes place (where, perhaps unconsciously, we approach or distance ourselves from the interlocutor)?
Our analysis must consider the macro and micro context in which the conversation takes place (culture of reference and specific family upbringing; current context), and if we do not have enough information, we must focus our attention on universal non-verbal signals, which are certainly more valid and reliable.
Is it a question of glances?
Eye contact is a cognitive attention signal, creating a visual and communicative link between two people, and involving the relational and emotional level between the two.
Looking into someone’s eyes, in addition to communicating our attention, can elicit varied, sometimes very intense emotions in them.
Looking into someone’s eyes intensely can be used to seduce during courtship, but can also trigger reactions of embarrassment, competitiveness or hostility. Looking away almost immediately lowers stress levels triggered during a communicative interaction, so that, on average, eye contact between interlocutors rarely lasts more than three seconds.
Eye contact is influenced by the performance rules introjected in one’s culture. Michael Watson, in research related to proxemics in subjects of different nationalities, found that subjects from Arab cultures converse for a longer time and in a frontal position towards the interlocutor, more so than North Americans and Europeans. In interaction, they face each other more directly. They make more eye contact, touch each other more and speak at a higher sound level. During a communicative interaction, listeners in Japan are expected to focus on the speaker’s neck so as to avoid eye contact, while in the US the opposite is the case, as it is a sign of good manners and respect to look the other person in the eye while speaking. In crowded lifts, it is customary not to look at the other person at all to avoid awkward small talk.
In the life of a couple, when people have loved each other for a long time or are at odds, they spend much less time looking into each other’s eyes.
Direct gaze, accompanied by a smiling face and body-forward posture, is a reliable sign of good feeling between people who are getting to know each other.
In primates, and later humans, persistent gazing evolved as a sign of dominance and or threat, while avoiding the other’s gaze is often correlated with attitudes of submission to the dominant.
How, then, can we use our gaze to improve our communication and become effective communicators?
We realise how important it is to draw a careful baseline of our interlocutor before choosing what to say or how to interact with the other.
This phase allows us to avoid uncomfortable communication misunderstandings, foster the process of empathy and improve our ability to establish positive relationships with others.
The gaze, like any non-verbal signal we transmit, should be modulated with kindness and respect, regardless of our role or the type of communication in which we are involved.
END SECOND CHAPTER
