Mother of three

Love to play golf and watch football in spare time!!

†† MCj03354420000[1]






Final Paper Public Touch in Romantic Couples

Nonverbal communication is a behavior that is often more reliable than verbal communication.
 The study of nonverbal behaviors in romantic couples, implies that nonverbal communication is powerful because it is usually seen as more believable than verbal messages. Research in the area of nonverbal behavior in romantic couples can provide valuable insight to marriage and family counselors. The research clearly defines that men associate touch with sex, and women use touch as confirming they have an established relationship with their partner.  Using a naturalistic approach to observe four different couples, and I recorded their nonverbal cues of touch.  Hypothesizing that well-established couples would engage more in public touch than new dating couples. 

I used a naturalistic approach to observe four different couples, and record their nonverbal cues of touch. I would secretly observe the couple for about ten minutes and record any form of touch.  I then followed up with each couple, explained my purpose of my project, and asked how they met.  I continued to code their nonverbal behavior to compare if there had been any changes in their nonverbal behavior after I approached them.  Each couple had been in their relationship for at least three years, and the age of the participants varied.

I began this pilot study looking for touch between couples in a public setting.  Predicting that well established couples would initiate touch more frequently than couples who are in newly established relationships. 

My hypothesis was not supported, couples demonstrated very little touch, but the finding indicated there is much other nonverbal behavior to identify when observing couples.

Couple together the longest displayed the most mirrored behavior, not touch. This might be better explained by what is called the Interaction Adaptation Theory, a natural tendency to match and synchronize with one’s partner (Miczo, 2008; Guerrero & Anderson, 2008).  The longer couples are together the more mirrored behavior the couple will display.  This was proven by this pilot study.  Further studies on nonverbal behavior in romantic couples may include observing a more diverse population of couples that would include different generations and cultures.  I also think it would be beneficial to observe couples interactions on more than one occasion, because a person’s mood or temperament may be affected by the events of that particular day and the behavior might be the norm of what the couple displays.

Oberservation #4

According to Smeltzer et al. (2008), individuals will tend to shake someone’s hand with one foot forward and one foot back, to be able to lean back after the handshake to gain personal space. 

The purpose of this observation was to further explore proxemics in handshaking.

Smeltzer et al. (2008) stated that females will allow others, male or female, to come closer than a man will typically allow. 

Through my oberservation and the handshakes I experienced, it may not be the gender that allows others to violate personal space, I think it is the individual. Futher research will be able to better determine what gender tends to violate personal space.

Observation #3

According to Segrin (2008), the certain nonverbal behaviors can help make people more effective and influential in interpersonal interactions.    This is a statement that I truly agree on, it is not so much what you say, but how you say it.    The textbook mentions the use of touch, space, clothing, and gaze in compliance-gaining situations, can be a tools used by individuals to persuade someone to comply with what is being asked of them.   

When I approach someone, I make sure that there is a good distance between us, because I am demonstrating I respect another’s one space, and this is also allowing me my own personal space. This goes along with Segrin explanation of the sequential-functional model of nonverbal exchange;  to take into consideration their personality, culture and gender, to be able to better determine an approach, and the space/ distance that is needed.  Segrain then mentions that more successful dresser appear to be more successful persuaders. 

After reading this week chapter on influence of nonverbal behavior in compliance-gaining process, I found this a perfect opportunity to try this tactic to approach this faculty member.

During this conversation I kept thinking about what Segrin said, the use of nonthreatening polite touches can have a positive feedback.  But this is where I became uncomfortable.  I tried to make my hand move over towards her hand, but because I am not a touchy feely person this was very, very, hard for me to do, especially with someone who I don’t know very well.  Interesting thing, when I tried to move my hand, she placed her hand about 2” on top of mind, and gave a quick tap, but never actually placing her hand on mind.  She then told me, that she would look at the area tomorrow and that we could make something work, it wouldn’t be a problem. 

Interestingly, for her to display that behavior towards me with her hand, she was providing me reassurance and cooperation, maybe a behavior that should be added to the compliance-gaining process.  Meaning, those behaviors we use to get others to comply with us, they can be mirrored back to us letting us know that they will comply with our request.   I do agree with the statement at the end of the chapter that it is just important how you say (Nonverbally) as what you say.  Through my experiment I do think my nature of my eye contact and space made the difference and is why she complied.

Oberservation paper #2

I’m Giving You Eye Contact

The purpose of this observation was to further explore Grumet, (2008) research on eye contact and comprehension, stating that women tend to look at their conversation partner more than men do.

 I decide to put this notion to the test by going out and observing two individuals conversing in a conversation. I was looking for eye contact, how much and for how long.

Participants oberserved were two different sert of male customer and male coffee attendant, then a femlae customaer and male attendant. A group of three students two males a feamle then another pair of females.

There was a significant difference in the amount of eye contact the male coffee attendant displayed to the female customer comparison to the male customers. 

Both females at the table made constant eye contact with one another during their conversation, they both would look at each other and confirm through their eye contact they were engaged in the conversation. 

The couple approached a fellow male student at one of the tables, the two gentlemen started engaging in conversation, while the female would look directly at the gentlemen who was speaking.  Interesting though, the guy standing next to the girl, looked at the gentlemen at the table for three to four seconds as he asked him questions.  The guy at the table would look at him for one maybe two seconds then look away or up at the television as he was answering or talking back. NOt more than 3 to 4 seconds of eye contact.


My mini observation, I did notice that femlaes display more eyecontact and tend to llok at their partner more than males.

Article Critique

Attachment Behaviors in Adult Relationships

Tucker and Anderson (1998) looked at nonverbal correlations of attachment style during interaction with a dating partner.  Their focus was on nonverbal behavior of couples and the cues a partner will give as a result of their attachment styles


Oberservation Paper 1

According to Crusco and Wetzel (2008), Interpersonal touch is a form of nonverbal behavior in which meaning is derived from a myriad of environmental and personal cues. 

The finding from their study found that tipping was increased equally whether it was a shoulder touch, or a hand touch, and that males tip more than females

I tired an experiment with two different tables of customers, the first table being two gentlemen and the other table was a man and women.  I oberserved the server interact with her patrons are the results were the following;

Both tables actually gave her more than twenty percent tip, including myself, and it is hard to determine with this limited observation if the touch alone truly impacted the percentage of the tip, but the server said that both parties did tip more than usual.  I do think that the study conducted by Crusco and Wetzel (2008) that touch can produce a higher tip does have some truth behind it.  But that it is also important, as noted by the servers, that reading your customer’s body language is vital and needs to be determined if touch is even appropriate for that customer.  Future research can explore was cues and behavior warrants touch in a dining experience.


COM 597 Course-Family Communication


Evaluation paper #1

Marriage, a History

·      This book gives data and research on what the idea of marriage came from.

·      Individuals expectations of what marriage is suppose to mean.

1.   In the past centuries marriage was an intuition that was entered for social status, political, or strengthen of families.

2. In the last couple centuries with the growth of individualism, marriage can now be viewed as a marriage for love and companionship.


·      Individuals have more choices on how to get out of a marriage if the relationship becomes bitter.

Many things have contributed to couple choosing to end a relationship.

1.   Women entering into the work force.

2.   Roles of gender changing.

3.   No fault divorce.






Observation Paper 1


††††††††† Men and women use territories in space in a work environment very different.Men more than women tend to violate the rule on space distance.

The males tended to use more eye contact than women, even though they stood closer than the females.I also found that women tend to respect the space and environmental setting of an office more than men do.


Literature Review

Family Diversity & the Division of Domestic Labor:How Much Have Things Really Changed

David H. Demo & Alan C. Acock

       Married woman spend around 70% of their week on housework.

       Divorce and single mothers spend roughly 87%of their time.

       Findings suggest that the absence of a husband or partner does not significantly increase the time mother spent on most tasks, that she may have more tasks such as driving children or paying bills.

       The additional care of a spouse or partner in the house can increase the amount of time spent on housework.

The conclusion of the study found out that men are contributing more than they did the 1960ís, but that women do the majority of the housework.


Observation paper #2

       The purpose of this experiment was to see if couples demonstratedIntimate Interactions in public.

       Two couples were observed in a restaurant setting.

       Componentsof Intimate interaction that I was looking for was touch, nodding of head, and active participation in the conversation.


       Couple Adid not demonstrated Intimate interactions

o   The male in the couple was looking around as the female was speaking.

o   He did not show active participation in the conversation, he did not lean towards her, there was no gestures of the hands or the head.

o   Conclusion of this couple they did not have a healthy relationship or were not in the best of terms this particular day.

       Couple B

The male and the female were both using touch, made eye contact, they displayed attentiveness and both were leaning towards one another.

Conclusion this couple demonstrated Intimate Interactions with one another.They displayed that they were into one another and enjoyed each otherís company and conversation.



Final paper

Hypotheses :If men contributed to doing the household work more, women would be happy with their marriage.


Method :Interviewed three women all who were married and work in the paid workforce.

Two questions were asked:

How much percentage of housework do you do in comparison to your Husband?

Do you think that the amount of housework the husband does contributes to being happy with a marriage?

Research has suggested that women want to receive help on the housework, but that emotion work was the main factor of what keeps women happy with their husband.The consequential approach in communication is that patterns and routines that will define a relationship through time.†† It sets the norm of the function and operation of running a home.When the cycle is changed and expectation of who will do the labor is disrupted, this can cause tension and argument.

Conclusion:My hypotheses was wrong.†† Women want the man to show emotion work more than housework.They want to feel the self worth and appreciation of what they do to organize and run the family and the chores of the house.In fact the more emotion work a wife received from her husband the more incline she was to be satisfied that she does the majority of the housework.