Advertisement

Spokespersons’ Nonverbal Behavior in Times of Crisis: The Relative Importance of Visual and Vocal Cues

  • Aurélie De Waele
  • An-Sofie Claeys
  • Verolien Cauberghe
  • Gijs Fannes
Original Paper

Abstract

When a chief executive officer or spokesperson responds to an organizational crisis, he or she communicates not only with verbal cues but also visual and vocal cues. While most research in the area of crisis communication has focused on verbal cues (e.g., apologies, denial), this paper explores the relative importance of visual and vocal cues by spokespersons of organizations in crisis. Two experimental studies have more specifically examined the impact of a spokesperson’s visual cues of deception (i.e., gaze aversion, posture shifts, adaptors), because sending a credible response is crucial in times of crisis. Each study focused on the interplay of these visual cues with two specific vocal cues that have also been linked to perceptions of deception (speech disturbances in study 1; voice pitch in study 2). Both studies show that visual cues of deception negatively affect both consumers’ attitudes towards the organization (study 1) and their purchase intentions (study 2) after a crisis. In addition, the findings indicate that in crisis communication, the impact of visual cues dominates the outcomes of vocal cues. In both studies, vocal cues only affected consumers’ perceptions when the spokesperson displayed visual cues of deception. More specifically, the findings show that crisis communication messages with speech disturbances (study 1) or a raised voice pitch (study 2) can negatively affect organizational post-crisis perceptions.

Keywords

Public relations Crisis communication Spokespersons’ visual cues Vocal cues Credibility Deception 

Notes

Funding

This work was supported in part by a grant from the Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT) (Grant Number 141414).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Aguinis, H., Simonsen, M. M., & Pierce, C. A. (1998). Effects of nonverbal behavior on perceptions of power bases. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138(4), 455–469.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Apple, W., Streeter, L. A., & Krauss, R. M. (1979). Effects of pitch and speech rate on personal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(5), 715–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arpan, L. M. (2002). When in Rome? The effects of spokesperson ethnicity on audience evaluation of crisis communication. Journal of Business Communication, 39(3), 314–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arpan, L. M., & Pompper, D. (2003). Stormy weather: Testing “stealing thunder” as a crisis communication strategy to improve communication flow between organizations and journalists. Public Relations Review, 29(3), 291–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arpan, L. M., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (2005). Stealing thunder: Analysis of the effects of proactive disclosure of crisis information. Public Relations Review, 31(3), 425–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Avery, E. J., Lariscy, R. W., Kim, S., & Hocke, T. (2010). A quantitative review of crisis communication research in public relations from 1991 to 2009. Public Relations Review, 36(2), 190–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barton, L. (2001). Crisis in organizations II. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Bellis, R. (2016, July 26). Why Hillary Clinton is so hard to trust even when she’s telling the truth. Fast Company. Retrieved from http://www.fastcompany.com.
  9. Boersma, P. (2001). Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5(9/10), 341–345.Google Scholar
  10. Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., Vrij, A., & Merckelbach, H. (2016). Strong, but wrong: Lay people’s and police officers’ beliefs about verbal and nonverbal cues to deception. PLoS ONE, 11(6), e0156615.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Bucy, E. P., & Newhagen, J. E. (1999). The emotional appropriateness heuristic: Processing televised presidential reactions to the news. Journal of Communication, 49(4), 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burgoon, J. K., Blair, J. P., & Strom, R. E. (2008). Cognitive biases and nonverbal cue availability in detecting deception. Human Communication Research, 34(4), 572–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2016). Nonverbal communication. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Carney, D. R., Hall, J. A., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Beliefs about the nonverbal expression of social power. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29(2), 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chiles, B. W., & Buslig, A. L. S. (2012). “I’m, uhh, sorry”: The influence of fluency and communication competence on perceptions of apologies. Communication and Theater Association of Minnesota Journal, 39(5), 66–85.Google Scholar
  16. Claeys, A.-S., & Cauberghe, V. (2012). Crisis response and crisis timing strategies, two sides of the same coin. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Claeys, A. S., & Cauberghe, V. (2014). Keeping control: The importance of nonverbal expressions of power by organizational spokespersons in times of crisis. Journal of Communication, 64(6), 1160–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10, 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (1996). Communication and attributions in a crisis: An experimental study in crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8(4), 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2001). An extended examination of the crisis situations: A fusion of the relational management and symbolic approaches. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(4), 321–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets: Initial tests of the situational crisis communication theory. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(2), 165–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2007). The negative communication dynamic. Journal of Communication Management, 11(4), 300–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2009). Further explorations of post-crisis communication: Effects of media and response strategies on perceptions and intentions. Public Relations Review, 35(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Davis, M., Markus, K. A., & Walters, S. B. (2006). Judging the credibility of criminal suspect statements: Does mode of presentation matter? Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30(4), 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Disley, A. C., Howard, D. M., & Hunt, A. D. (2006, August). Timbral description of musical instruments. Paper presented at the 9th international conference on music perception and cognition, Bologna, Italy.Google Scholar
  27. Farley, S. D. (2008). Attaining status at the expense of likeability: Pilfering power through conversational interruption. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 32(4), 241–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Feinberg, D. R., DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2008). The role of femininity and averageness of voice pitch in aesthetic judgments of women’s voices. Perception, 37(4), 615–623.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (2004). Appearing truthful generalizes across different deception situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 486–495.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., & Newell, S. J. (2000). The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gorn, G., Jiang, Y., & Johar, G. V. (2008). Babyfaces, trait inferences, and company evaluations in a public relations crisis. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gorney, C. (2001). Use of neutral investigators for third-party credibility. Public Relations Quarterly, 33(1), 24–28.Google Scholar
  33. Hall, J. A., & Schmid Mast, M. (2007). Sources of accuracy in the empathic accuracy paradigm. Emotion, 7(2), 438–446.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Hampson, R. (2016, September 25). Tics and tricks: Here’s what Trump and Clinton’s body language reveals. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com.
  35. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analyses. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  36. Henningsen, D. D., Valde, K. S., & Davies, E. (2005). Exploring the effect of verbal and nonverbal cues on perceptions of deception. Communication Quarterly, 53(3), 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hong, S., & Len-Riós, M. E. (2015). Does race matter? Implicit and explicit measures of the effect of the PR spokesman’s race on evaluations of spokesman source credibility and perceptions of a PR crisis’ severity. Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(1), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Imhof, M. (2010). Listening to voices and judging people. The International Journal of Listening, 24(1), 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jaworski, A., & Galasinski, D. (2002). The verbal construction of non-verbal behaviour: British press reports of President Clinton’s grand jury testimony video. Discourse & Society, 13(5), 629–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kim, S., Avery, E. J., & Lariscy, R. W. (2011). Reputation repair at the expense of providing instructing and adjusting information following crises. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 5(3), 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Klofstad, C. A. (2015). Candidate voice pitch influences election outcomes. Political Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12280.Google Scholar
  42. Koerber, D. (2014). Crisis communication response and political communities: The unusual case of Toronto mayor Rob Ford. Canadian Journal of Communication, 39(3), 311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). Corporate credibility’s role in consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used in the ad. Journal of Business Research, 44(2), 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Laufer, D., & Jung, J. M. (2010). Incorporating regulatory focus theory in product recall communications to increase compliance with a product recall. Public Relations Review, 36(2), 147–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lyon, L., & Cameron, G. T. (2004). A relational approach examining the interplay of prior reputation and immediate response to a crisis. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16(3), 213–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Masip, J., & Herrero, C. (2014). Police detection of deception: Beliefs about behavioral cues to deception are strong even though contextual evidence is more useful. Journal of Communication, 65(1), 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Massaro, D. W., & Egan, P. B. (1996). Perceiving affect from the voice and the face. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(2), 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McClaskey, C. M. (2013). Difference thresholds for melodic pitch intervals. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(5), 3994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mileva, M., Tompkinson, J., Watt, D., & Burton, A. M. (2017). Audiovisual integration in social evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000439.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 318–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Morwitz, V. G., Steckel, J. H., & Gupta, A. (2007). When do purchase intentions predict sales? International Journal of Forecasting, 23(3), 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Park, H., & Cameron, G. T. (2014). Keeping it real: Exploring the roles of conversational human voice and source credibility in crisis communication via blogs. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(3), 487–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Patrick, W. L. (2016, September 19). Debate winner is in the eye (not the ear) of the beholder. Psychology Today. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com.
  54. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Puts, D. A., Gaulin, S. J. C., & Verdolini, K. (2006). Dominance and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in human voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(4), 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rappeport, A. (2016, October 10). What story did debate night body language tell? The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com.
  57. Reinhard, M.-A., & Sporer, S. L. (2008). Verbal and nonverbal behaviour as a basis for credibility attribution: The impact of task involvement and cognitive capacity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 477–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rezlescu, C., Penton, T., Walsh, V., Tsujimura, H., Scott, S. K., & Banissy, M. J. (2015). Dominant voices and attractive faces: The contribution of visual and auditory information to integrated person impressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39(4), 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schweinberger, S. R., Kloth, N., & Robertson, D. M. (2011). Hearing facial identities: Brain correlates of face–voice integration in person identification. Cortex, 47(9), 1026–1037.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Schweinberger, S. R., Robertson, D., & Kaufmann, J. M. (2007). Hearing facial identities. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(10), 1446–1456.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Simpson, A. P. (2009). Phonetic differences between male and female speech. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(2), 621–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Skuk, V. G., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2014). Influences of fundamental frequency, formant frequencies, aperiodicity, and spectrum level on the perception of voice gender. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57(1), 285–296.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2006). Paraverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(4), 421–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stiff, J. B., Miller, G. R., Sleight, C., Mongeau, P., Garlick, R., & Rogan, R. (1989). Explanations for visual cue primacy in judgments of honesty and deceit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(4), 555–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Strömwall, L., & Granhag, P. A. (2003). How to detect deception? Arresting the beliefs of police officers, prosecutors and judges. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. ‘t Hart, J. (1981). Differential sensitivity to pitch distance, particularly in speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 69(3), 811–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. ten Brinke, L., & Adams, G. S. (2015). Saving face? When emotion displays during public apologies mitigate damage to organizational performance. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 130, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tigue, C. C., Borak, D. J., O’Connor, J. J. M., Schandl, C., & Feinberg, D. R. (2012). Voice pitch influences voting behavior. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(3), 210–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. van der Cruijsen, C., de Haan, J., & Jansen, D. J. (2016). Trust and financial crisis experiences. Social Indicators Research, 127(2), 577–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. van Zoonen, W., & van der Meer, T. (2015). The importance of source and credibility perception in times of crisis: Crisis communication in a socially mediated era. Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(5), 371–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vrij, A., Edward, K., Roberts, K. P., & Bull, R. (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24(4), 239–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vrij, A., & Semin, G. R. (1996). Lie experts’ beliefs about nonverbal indicators of deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wallbott, H. G., & Scherer, K. R. (1986). Cues and channels in emotion recognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4), 690–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zuckerman, M., Amidon, M. D., Bishop, S. E., & Pomerantz, S. D. (1982). Face and tone of voice in the communication of deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(2), 347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Media Studies, Faculty of Social SciencesKU LeuvenLouvainBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Communication Sciences, Center for Persuasive Communication, Faculty of Social and Political SciencesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations