The Effects of Social Presence and Modeling on Gestures

1. The Effects of Social Presence and Modeling on Gestures Patricia Mullings-Thomas, Christy E. O’Brien, Lillan Schatvet, Sarah Shattuck and Yifat Tamir Mount Holyoke College

2. Introduction-How does an audience affect how we move? -Does our awareness of how many people are watching cause us to modify our gesture usage? -Does the amount that people around us gesture in turn affect our own gestures?

3. Previous Research -Social presence -Tends to increase the number of gestures (Frielund, 1991; Lee & Wagner, 2002). -Tends to make people internalize embarrassment, self consciousness & social anxiety (Patterson,1997; Osamu, 1996) -Modeling -People tend to mimic the behavior of those around them (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999) -Aids in communicating empathy & mutual fondness between communicators (Hess, Philippot, & Blairy, 1999)

4. Hypothesis • Participants who perform in the high social presence condition will make more gestures, than participants in the low social presence condition • those aware of audience size tend to internalize embarrassment, self-consciousness and social anxiety • Participants in the modeling condition will gesture more than participants in the non-modeling condition • people will mimic modeled gestures

5. Variables IV #1=social presence IV #2=modeling • high social presence (HSP) - Modeling (M) • low social presence (LSP) - Non-modeling (NM) DV=number of gestures

6. Participants 85 traditional and non-traditional female students taking classes at Mount Holyoke 21 participants randomly assigned to each of 3 conditions and 22 in one Materials measuring tape masking tape stopwatch script one table consent form debriefing statement Method

7. Procedure • 2 (social presence: HSP, LSP) X 2 (modeling: M, NM) • 2 Conditions for Social Presence • High social presence (3 researchers) • Low social presence (2 researchers - 1 known) • 2 Conditions for Modeling • Modeling • Non-modeling • Up to one minute to think of a fictional story • One minute to tell the fictional story • Observed and tallied number of gestures • Debriefed participants (revealed deception) Method cont’d

8. Results • Hypothesis -Social Presence (IV #1) -Modeling (IV #2) -HSP => more gestures -M=> more gestures -LSP => less gestures -NM=> less gestures • Type of Analysis = 2 X 2 Factorial ANOVA for Independent Groups

9. Main Effects & Interaction • Main Effect for Social Presence - Not significant • - F(1,81)=1.67, MSE=122.24, p>.05 • Main Effect for Modeling - Marginally significant • - More gestures in Modeling Condition • - F(1,81)=3.187, MSE=122.24, p<.10 • Interaction for social presence X modeling - Not significant • - F(1,81)=1.28, MSE=122.24, p>.05 Results cont’d

10. Results cont’d

11. Discussion • Data not statistically significant (marginally significant main effect for modeling) • Participants who performed in the HSP condition made no more gestures than those in the LSP condition. • Our study did not support previous research indicating that heightened social presence increased the number of gestures (Frielund, 1991; Lee & Wagner, 2002). • Participants who performed in the modeling condition made slightly more gestures than those in the non-modeling condition. • This trend supported previous research (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999).

12. Implications • Raise awareness of excessive use of gestures • Distracting • Positive usage of gestures • Public speaking, courtroom settings, job or college interviews • Increase clarity, confidence and articulation • Raise awareness of the importance of modeling as a teaching tool for public speaking and self-presentation Discussion cont’d