The ability of new Canadians to decode gestures generated by Canadians of Anglo-Celtic backgrounds

International Journalof Inlemdrurd Rekaliom. Vol. IS. pp. 47-44, 1991 0147-1767/91 $3.00 + 30 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright o 1991 Pergamon Press plc

THE ABILITY OF NEW CANADIANS TO DECODE GESTURES GENERATED BY CANADIANS OF

ANGLO-CELTIC BACKGROUNDS

AARON WOLFGANG and ZELLA WOLOFSKY

Department of Applied Psychology, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and The University of Toronto

ABSTRACT. The main purpose of this study was to generate and validate a series of gestures used by Canadians in a variety of social situations and to test the robustness of these gestures. There were 100 participants, consisting of 3 sample populations. Sample IA generated the 2S gestures used in the study, sample IB were models who demonstrated the gestures in front of a camera, sample 2 were Canadian-born, and sample 3 were foreign-born new Canadian students taking classes in English as a Second Language. These new Canadians came from either contact-oriented, cultures, such as Latin and South American, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern countries, or they came from noncontact- oriented cultures, such as Japan China, and Hong Kong. Overall, they were in Canada for less than one year. The sample of gestures generated by the Canadian-born participants showed a high degree of intracultural validation. Although the Canadian-born population had significantly higher decoding and recognition scores, new Canadians from contact and noncontact-oriented cultures also achieved relatively high decoding and recognition scores. The closer the cultural-linguistic group to Canadians, the greater the ability to recognize the Canadian generated gestures.

Gestures are an important part of nonverbal communication. This form of communication can provide sources of inferences concerning emotions, attitudes, interpersonal roles, cultural background, and pa- thology (Argyle, 1975; Ekman & Friesen, 1969). While the face, one of the most intensely studied channels of nonverbal communication (Har- rison, 1984). was found to be a most important area of signaling emo- tional states (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1979; Ekman, 1982; Ekman & Friesen, 1975; Izard, 1971, 1977; Wolfgang & Cohen, 1988), researchers have also explored communications using other bodyparts (e.g., Efrori, 1972; Ekman dc Friesen, 1969; Wylie, 1977).

The authors wish to thank Joanne Dumas for her assistance in collecting the data for this study.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Aaron Wolfgang, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, (OISE)-Department of Applied Psychology, 252 Bloor Street West, Torohto, Ontario, Canada MSS lV6.

48 A. Wolfgang and Z. Wolofsky

Efron’s (1941/1972) work with American Jews and Italians pioneered the systematic study of body movements of different cultural groups during conversations and gave rise to a way of distinguishing the various movements observed. It was he who coined the term “emblems,” and defined them as movement patterns that had precise meaning. Efron used that precision to write a dictionary of emblems for the immigrants he studied in New York.

Kendon (1984) defined gestures as actions that were used for the process of communication and that conveyed meaning beyond the actual physical patterns of the action. To Ekman and Friesen (1969), “gesture” was too broad a term, and they suggested the substitution of the term “emblem,” in the Efron sense. To them, an emblem had a direct translation, usually a word or phrase whose definition was known to a particular cultural group (Ekman & Friesen, 1972). Emblems could also be exchanged with an equivalent verbal expression (Kirk & Burton, 1976). They were usually learned, culturally specific, and may or may not have been arbitrarily coded (Ekman & Friesen, 1969).

Why have researchers such as Ekman and Friesen (19691, Saitz and Cervenka (1972), Morris, Collett, Marsh and O’Shaughnessey (1979), Safadi and Valentine (1988), and Schneller (1985, 1988) focused so much of their nonverbal communication research on the emblem? Emblems can be interchanged for an equivalent verbal form (Kirk & Burton, 1976). Since emblems have deliberate communicative intentions, the encoder could usually be aware that the emblem was being sent. Because emblems were easily understood, specific in their agreed upon meanings, and less idiosyncratic than other forms of nonverbal communication they were rarely displayed without some conscious decision on the part of the encoder to send them. Emblems were an international communicative behavior and were usually learned, most often through culturally specific learning (Ekman & Friesen, 1969). In most cases, the decoder knew that the emblem had been sent, and often knew the emblem’s message. Obvious difficulty in communication occurred when the message intended was decoded incorrectly. One such miscommunication could occur amongst people with cultural differences, such as immigrants to new countries, refugees, foreign students, tourists, and business people in other countries.

Are gestures more pancultural, more culturally specific, or do they have elements of both? To date, this is a question that finds protagonists on both sides. On a broader scale, we can ask: Are there universals in nonverbal communization? Leach (1972) believed that the human species had an innate generalized tendency to organize expressive behavior grammatically. Hinde (1974) felt that one of the reasons that respondents did not identify photographs of gestures accurately was because the gestures needed to be seen within the specific context of the interaction.

The Ability of New Canadians 49

Saitz and Cervenka (1972) suggested that gestures only had meaning within the context in which they occur. Ekman & Friesen (1969) suggested that some emblems, usually those associated with bodily functions, were pancultural, while pictorial-iconic emblems tended to be more culturally specific.

In order to study emblem repertories, Ekman and Friesen (1969) devel- oped a method using informants, back-translation, and rating scales in their work in Japan and New Guinea. Saitz and Cervenka (1972) used personal observations and interviews with both American and Colum- bian informants, to collect their repertoire. Efron (194111972) used sketches, direct observation, and films of traditional and assimilated Jews and Italians in their own living situations.

Batteries of gestures, or gesture inventories, have been completed by Morris et al. (1979) on Europeans, Saitz and Cervenka (1972) on Colum- bians, Sparhawk (1978) on Iranian gestures, Wylie (1977) on gestures of the French, Creider (1977) on Kenyan gestures, and Schneller (1985) on Ethiopian and Israeli gestures.

There has been little or no research regarding gestures used by Canadi- ans in face-to-face interactions. Anglo-Celtic Canadians can be thought of as more of a noncontact oriented (NCO) people who are more verbally oriented in their communication style than gesturally oriented (Mon- tague, 1971). Canada accepts many new immigrants and refugees in proportion to its population (Wolfgang, 1987). Due to immigration and refugee entrants from more contact-oriented (CO) countries (e.g., Medi- terranean, Latin American, and South American countries), the ethnic makeup of Canada has changed over the years from one consisting of Anglo-Celtic and French Canadian cultures to one more polyglot in nature. The use of emblems by people of one culture in the presence of those from another culture may very well lead to miscommunication or misunderstanding (Schneller, 1985, 1988; Wolfgang, 1986). The question is: Will the gestures used by Canadians in face-to-face communications be decoded correctly by new Canadians of differing cultural and linguistic backgrounds?

There is a need to examine whether gestures typically recognized by Canadian-born people are decoded and understood correctly by those new immigrants to Canada. Nonverbal forms of expression are just as much a language as verbal language. In fact, unlike verbal communication, nonverbal communications such as gestures, reflect more of our feelings and attitudes towards others (Wolfgang, 1984). In an applied context, Wolfgang (1979, 1986) suggested that when teaching English as a Second Language, teachers should teach not only the verbal, but also the nonverbal language. This would enable the students to understand the verbal language of the host population more fully and the gestures often used in face-to-face communications. Argyle (1975), Davis (1973),


Montague (1971) and Wolfgang and Josefowitz (1978) have discussed how people from NC0 cultures tend not to use hand gestures much to reflect emotions and attitudes in interpersonal communication. This might lead to less proficiency in decoding gestures used by peoples from other cultures.

This study was designed to attempt to answer the following questions: To what extent would gestures used by Anglo-Celtic Canadians (distinctive from French Canadians) in face-to-face communication be decoded and recognized accurately by new Canadians? How robust would the Canadian-generated gestures be? Which gestures would be more easily recognized and used by these new Canadians? What degree of certainty would these new Canadians have in decoding the meaning of these gestures? Would people from CO cultures, who had wider repertories of gestures during face-to-face communications, be better at decoding and recognizing gestures used by Canadian-born people, than people from NC0 cultures?

METHODOLOGY

Participants

Overall, there were 100 participants in this study consisting of three population samples, each serving different functions. The purpose of sample 1A was to generate some common gestures that Canadians used to express themselves. Sample IB consisted of models who portrayed these gestures in front of a camera. Sample 2 was the validation group of Anglo-Celtic Canadians to see to what extent there was common agreement as to meaning, recognition, certainty, and use of the gestures. Sample 3 consisted of representatives from contact-oriented cultures (CO) and noncontact-oriented cultures (NCO). The group that represented cultures known to be conservative in their use of gestures and touch in face-to-face communications were labeled as NCO. These participants were from Japan, China, and Hong Kong. Participants from Latin American and Mediterranean countries, known for their use of gestures and touch in face-to-face communications, were labeled as CO, or contact-oriented, cultures (Argyle, 1975; Davis, 1973; Wolfgang & Josefowitz, 1978).

Sample IA and IB

In the first subsample (lA), there was a total of 28 volunteer participants consisting of 16 males and 12 females. The mean age of the participants was 30 years. Their education ranged from grade 8 to university graduates, with 54% of the sample having some university education. In


this sample, the participants were all born in Canada’as was at least one of each participant’s parents, and were of the Anglo-Celtic ethnic group. This ethnic group was distinctive from the other major Canadian-born ethnic group, that of French Canadians.

In sample lB, there were 11 models who each portrayed, in a professional photographic studio, a series of gestures primarily generated from a list of commonly used gestures obtained from sample 1A. The mean age of Sample 1B was 27 years (range 8 to 55 years). Of the 11 models, 10 were born in Canada with Canadian-born parents as well, and of Anglo-Celtic background. One model was American born, but had lived in Canada for 19 years.

Sample 2

This sample consisted of 25 participants to validate the gestures, 15 females and 10 males, with a mean age of 31. All participants were Canadian-born, of Anglo-Celtic background, born to at least one An- glo-Celtic Canadian-born parent. Along with samples 1A and lB, this represented a highly homogenous sample group.

Sample 3

This sample consisted of two groups: (1) 11 Japanese and 7 Chinese students of English as a Second Language classes, with a mean age of 25 years and average stay in Canada of 21 months, representing NC0 cultures; (2) 18 participants from the Mediterranean and Latin American regions, 10 male and 8 female, with a mean age of 24 years and average stay in Canada of 7 months, representing CO cultures. This group com- prised 7 from Latin American countries, 6 from the Mediterranean re- gion, and 5 from the Middle East. Overall, 61 Vo of sample 3 had been in Canada for less than one year.

Procedure

Procedures IA and 1B. A 27-year-old female graduate student con- ducted face-to-face interviews with 28 volunteer Canadian-born participants (sample 1A) to obtain information about gestures they commonly used as well as those that they commonly liked and/or disliked using in face-to-face interactions. They were asked to demonstrate the gestures, give verbal descriptions, and label what the gestures meant to them. From these interviews, a list of all the gestures suggested was generated and recorded. Each gesture used was scored as to the number of times it was mentioned. This process generated 36 emblems and 26 non emblems. Of the 36 emblems, the 23 most popular ones were chosen for inclusion


in this investigation. These 23 were diverse, representing approval, disapproval, social acknowledgement, control, information-seeking, and re- flecting mood or state.

With sample lB, 10 of the 11 models were paid $20.00 each to come to a professional photographer’s studio and demonstrate the 23 gestures most commonly used by sample 1A. One model, the senior author, was not paid. The graduate student from Sample 1A was present to ensure that these were accurate demonstrations of the gestures generated by sample 1A. Two other gestures were included as part of the gestures demonstrated. These were gestures with a sexual bias component. The reason for this inclusion was to see whether there were sex and cultural differences as to the meaning of these gestures.

The photographs taken were in color, of full body, with facial expressions visible. The models (Sample 1B) wore casual clothing, skirts, slacks, sweaters, and blouses for the women, and shirts, sweaters, and trousers for the men. One model wore glasses. Each model wore the same clothing throughout the entire photographic session.

Procedures 2 and 3. The 23 gestures (emblems) had been chosen on the basis of their commonality of use and meaning among Sample 1A. Two were added (See Table 1 #17 and #18) to broaden the scope of the gesture pool. Six categories were generated from the gesture pool as follows: approval, disapproval, questioning, reflection, controlling/ commanding, and social acknowledgment, these being based on their face validity.

The 25 participants of sample 2 and the 35 participants in sample 3 were shown the 25 gestures depicted on 35 mm colored slides for 2 seconds each. An automatic slide projector apparatus with electronic timers to systemati- cally control the time of exposure and intertrial interval was used. The participants of sample 2 and sample 3 were asked to record their responses and answers to the following questions on answer sheets:

1. Recognition: Do you recognize this gesture? (mark yes/no) 2. Meaning: What does this gesture mean? (write a description of the

meaning) 3. Certainty: How certain are you of the meaning of this gesture? (use a

5-point Likert scale, 5 = completely certain, 1 = uncertain) 4. Use: Do you use this gesture? (mark yes/no) 5. Frequency of use: How often do you use this gesture? (Use a 5-point

Likert scale, 1 = infrequently, 5 = frequently.)

RESULTS

Overall, an analysis of variance was performed on the data, as weli as a reliability test (Hoyt Estimate of Internal Reliability) on the results. The computer program used was the SPSS-X package. The results from

The Ability ofNew Canadians 53

TABLE 1

Description, Meaning, Percentage of Gestures Recognized

and Correctlv Answereda

Canadians NCOb CO”

Gesture Meaning Description M F M F M F

1 A-OK thumb and 100 100 100 92 80 100

forefinger touching; (100) (100) (100) (100) (90) (100)

2

3

4

smiling face

Be quiet forefinger to pursed 100 100 63

lips (100) (100) (100)

Yawn “Tired/ hand in front of 100 100 50 Bored” opened mouth (100) (100) (67)

67

5

6

7

Up yours middle finger raised 100 100

straight up (100) (100)

How are you fist at shoulder of 100 100 doing? other person, (90) (100)

smiling face

Hand Shake hands clasped at 100 100

“Greeting” shoulder level (90) (94)

Listen to me forefinger hitting 100 94

6 Can’t hear you

9

10

11

12

13

14

Hi

Shrug “I don’t know”

Puzzled

Warn “Scold”

Beckon “come here”

91 100 67 100) (90) (100)

50 100 67

100) (90) (100)

6 30 72 100) (75) (80) (100)

(::) ($ (Z) (1::)

chest of other person

hand cupping ear, head tilted forward to hand

hand extended in

front of shoulders, palm forward

One hand raised above shoulder level, palm forward

Palms forward,

shoulders up

forefinger by nose, rest of hand on chin

other hand holding elbow

forefinger raised cocked forward

headandgaze lowered, forefinger curled toward encoder

84 58 90 88

100) (100) (70) (88)

84 66 70 75

(100) (100) (100) (84) (100) (88)

100 100 100 100 70 75

(100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)

100 94 100 75 80 100 (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)

100 100 84 100 80 100 (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)

100 100 100 50 100 87 (100) (100) (100) (83) (100) (100)

100 100 100 66 90 100 (160) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)

100 100 87 50 100 88 (100) (100) (84) (100) (100) (100)

100 100 67 50 100 100 (100) (100) (100) (92) (100) (100)

(continued)


TABLE 1 Continued

Gesture Meaning

Canadians NCOb CO”

Description M F M F M F

15 Right on

16 Uncertain, not sure

17 Good girl, patronizing

16 I like you, demeaning

19 Anger

20 Stinks

21 Who me?

22 You’ll be fine

23

24

What’s the time

Goodbye/Hi

25 So there

fist, with thumb up 100 100 84 58 70 62

(100) (100) (100) (92) (100) (100) scratching back of 100 100 83 92 100 100

head with hand, (100) (100) (84) (92) (90) (88) forehead wrinkled

man extending hand to pat

woman’s head

100 80 83 67 50 100

(100) (90) (67) (75) (60) (80)

man extending hand to woman’s derriere

100 87 84 42 60 63

(100) (90) (67) (75) (70) (13)

one fist clenched in 100 94 84 58 60 88

front of body, close (80) (80) (100) (58) (80) (75) to upper chest

thumb and 100 100 67 83 70 100

forefinger (100) (100) (84) (83) (80) (88) squeezing nose

forefinger to chest, 100 100 84 42 100 100

shoulders raised, (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) face quizzical

touching shoulder 80 94 34 60 80 62

of other person (60) (74) (50) (50) (80) (38)

pointing to wrist 100 87 67 60 90 75

with forefinger (100) (87) (84) (67) (90) (100)

waving hands 100 94 84 84 90 25

palms foreward (100) (94) (100) (92) (100) (88)

sticking out tongue 100 100 67 100 80 100

(100) (100) (100) (84) (90) (88)

‘Total percent correctly answered listed in brackets. bCO = noncontact oriented cultures; ‘CO = contact oriented cultures.

sample 2 and sample 3 were compared. Sample 2 consisted of the Canadian-born participants, while sample 3 consisted of the CO and NC0 groups.

Each participant was asked to respond to each slide as to correct identification of the meaning of the gesture, recognition, certainty, usage, and frequency of use of the gesture. The reliabilities for internal


TABLE 2 Distribution of Overall Percentages of Gestures Correctly

Answered, Gestures Recognized, and Gestures Used

Correct Meaning Recognition Use of of Gestures of Gestures Gestures

Canadian Male Female

NCO* Male Female

cob Male Female

96.80 99.20 91.20 96.36 96.96 67.12

90.46 79.74 90.46

66.04 64.08 84.36

69.20 80.00 86.80 69.66 83.88 85.48

‘NC0 = noncontact-oriented cultures; bCO = contact oriented cultures.

consistencies of the five variables were 0.90, 0.85, 0.91, 0.83, and 0.88, respectively, which were well within the acceptable range.

Table 1 describes each gesture used and its meaning, as well as total percentage of respondents recognizing and correctly identifying each particular gesture. Table 2 describes overall percentages of gestures correctly answered, gestures recognized, and gestures used. The results showed (Table 1 and 2) that for the vast majority of gestures, an agreement as to meaning of the gestures was very high for the Canadian sample (sample #2) with 22 of the 25 gestures being correctly identified by over 90% of this sample. With the remaining three gestures, a mini- mum of 80% accuracy was achieved. The overall accuracy level for these participants (sample 2) was 96.5%. These results meet the strict validation criteria of 90% suggested by Safadi and Valentine (1988) as a reliable measure for labeling a gesture as an “emblem.”

As seen in Table 3, the Canadians in sample 2 also displayed a high degree of certainty as to the meaning of the gesture on the gesture list. Thus, for the validation of the gestures generated by the Canadian participants (sample lA), there was a high level of interpretive agreement, a high level of recognition, and a general high degree of certainty as to the meaning of the gestures. A further demonstration of the robustness of the Canadian gestures was exemplified in Table 2 where a high percentage of the participants said they used the gesture.

With the population of the new Canadians (both NC0 and CO groups), a higher overall percentage of gestures were correctly identified than were recognized (see Table 2). When the component populations of the NC0 group were compared with respect to the overall percentage of

56 A. Wolfgang and 2. Wolofsky

TABLE 3 Degree of Certainty and Frequency of Use

of Gestures by Sex and Cultural Groups in Terms of High, Medium and Low Categories

Certainty Frequency

High Medium Low High Medium Low

Canadian Male 22 3 0 3 13 9 Female 17 8 0 5 10 10

NCO’ Male 15 7 3 6 15 4 Female 13 10 2 4 11 10

cob Male 19 6 0 4 15 6 Female 20 5 0 7 11 7

“NC0 = noncontact-oriented cultures; bCO = contact-oriented cultures.

correct identification and overall percentage of recognition, little difference was found. The difference between Chinese-born and Japanese- born was only 4 percentage points with respect to correct identification. In terms of recognition, the Chinese and Japanese populations differed by less than 0.1%. When comparing the component populations of the CO group, the differences between the Latin American population and the Mediterranean population in terms of correct identification was only 4.9%. For correct recognition, the difference between the two component groups was only 2.9%.

Table 3 describes the degree of certainty and frequency of use of the gestures. These were scored on a Spoint Likert scale. The responses were classified as to high, medium, or low, certainty and frequency, representing the upper, middle, and lower thirds of the scores, respectively. Frequency of use showed very similar patterns for each group. In fact, although a high percentage of the Canadians said they used the gestures, it was interesting that when comparing usage to frequency of use, the Canadians predominantly reported medium and low frequency of use. This was consistent with Montague (1971) who noted that Anglo- Saxon Canadians could be thought to be a noncontact-oriented group and not a gesturally oriented people.

Both the Canadians and CO groups displayed a high degree of certainty of responses (Table 3), while the NC0 group demonstrated less certainty. More of the NC0 responses fell into the medium and low levels of certainty than did those of the other two groups; NC0 also had lower recognition levels.


This paralleled the findings of Rosenthal, Hall, Dimatteo, Rogers, and Archer (1979). They found that groups that were more culturally and linguistically different from the culture of the person portraying a variety of nonverbal behaviors were less proficient in identifying these behaviors (e.g., recognition of emotions and bodily cues).

An analysis of variance was performed on sex and nationality of the variables listed below:

Correct Identification

The new Canadians from both the NC0 group and the CO group identified the gestures significantly less correctly than the Canadians, F(2, 57) = 3.55, p c .036, with Canadians obtaining 97% correctiden- tification, those from the NC0 group, 88%, and from the CO group, 89% correct identification of the Canadian gestures.

A further analysis of variance was done on the six categories of gestures. The analysis shows that Canadians significantly outperformed (92%) both the NC0 group (75%) and the CO group (76%) with the gestures representing approval, F(2, 60) = 3.87, p < .02. See Table 1, items 1, 5, 15, 17, 18, and 22, which make up the approval category. These items indicate that it was the NC0 female group that performed the poorest, with the male NC0 group having difficulty correctly identifying the reassuring touch gesture. This finding was consistent with the results of a previous study with a Chinese population which showed that Chinese students were not sure if it was suitable to use hand gestures to make a point and that touching was not a good way of showing affection (Wolfgang & Josefowitz, 1978). In the present study, Chinese students were part of the NC0 group.

Seven items in Table 1 were correctly identified by all three groups 100% of the time (e.g., A-Ok, be quiet, can’t hear, stop, hi, puzzled, and who me?). Nine other items were correctly identified with a maximum of 80% accuracy by all three groups. Of the 25 items, 16 showed some pancultural qualities for the groups studied. Other studies also reported pancultural properties of gestures amongst the different cultural groups (e.g., Ekman & Friesen, 1969; Kendon, 1984; Morris et al. 1979; Safadi & Valentine, 1988; Schneller, 1988).

Recognition

The analysis of variance indicated that the NC0 group showed significantly less recognition (74%) of the gestures when compared to either Canadians (93%) or the CO group (84%), F(2, 60) = 8.45, p < .OOl. This finding was consistent with earlier results of the sensitivity to interracial facial expressions and recognition of emotions. The closer the


encoder represented the decoder’s own race, the better the recognition (Brigham & Barkowitz, 1978; Brigham & Williamson, 1979; Wolfgang, 1980; Wolfgang & Cohen, 1988).

Both the NC0 and CO groups showed differences in terms of recognition of disapproval, F(2, 60) = 13.49, p < .OOl, with Canadians obtaining 96% recognition of these gestures, the NC0 group, 69% recognition, and the CO group, 76%. Of those gestures which were approving in nature, Canadians recognized 91%, NC0 group, 68%, and CO group, 75%, F(2,60) = 6.99), p < .002. With questioning gestures, Canadians recognized 93%, NC0 group, 76%, and CO group, 88%, F(2, 60) = 3.59, p < .034, See Table 1 for items 4, 7, 13, 19, 20, 25 (disapproving) and items 8, 21, 23 (questioning).

The scores for gesture recognition were consistently lower than those for correct identification amongst the three groups (Table 1). There were only 4 gestures for which there was a high recognition agreement (80% or over) as compared to correct identification where there were 16 gestures achieving this level. This result was primarily due to lower recognition scores of the female Oriental group.

Certainty

There were no significant differences @ > .05) with respect to certainty in identifying the meaning of the gesture amongst the three cultural groups, or between the sexes. Overall, the majority of sample populations fell in the high category range, with only a few falling in the low certainty range from the NC0 group.

With one of the items inserted because of its sexual bias, item #17 (man patting woman’s head), there was a significant difference amongst the three groups of participants, F(2, 41) = 6.05, p < .005. The NC0 group was the least certain of the meaning of this gesture.

Use

There were no significant differences 0, > .05) with respect to usage amongst the three cultural groups, or between the sexes. However, as Table 2 shows, a high percentage of the participants in all three groups said they used the Canadian-generated gestures.

Frequency of Use

There were no significant differences 0, > .05) amongst the three cultural groups or between the sexes with respect to frequency of use of the Canadian gestures. The reported frequencies of use, in a majority of the items, were generally in the medium and low ranges (see Table 3).


This indicated that a higher percentage of participants reported that they used the gesture, but when they were asked about degree of use of these gestures, only a minority reported a high frequency of use.

However, there were significant differences found amongst the three groups of participants for individual items. For one of the items inserted because of obvious sexual bias, item #17 (man patting a woman’s head), there was a significant difference amongst the three groups (F(2, 26) = 4.57, p < .022. Again, the NC0 group reported using this gesture the least, and as previously reported, were the least certain about the meaning of this gesture.

DISCUSSION

The list of gestures generated by the Canadian-born sample (sample 1A) was intraculturally successful in that there was a high degree of accuracy in decoding the meaning of the gestures (over 9Ovo) by another similar Canadian-born group (sample #2). There was also a high degree of recognition, correctness, use, and certainty of meaning of the gesture by this population. Such high scores on the above variables have not been found by other researchers (e.g., Safadi & Valentine, 1988; Scott & Charteris, 1986; Schneller, 1985, 1988). In part, this can be explained by the fact that this sample was more culturally homogeneous, unlike the studies mentioned above.

This finding is not surprising, considering that overall the list of Cana- dian gestures was composed of gestures generated by a homogenous, An- glo-Celtic Canadian sample, all born in Canada, from Canadian-born parents, as were the participants from sample #2, the validation group. This is different from other research. For example, the Schneller Israeli Emblem Test (Schneller, 1988) included a series of nine common gestures originating from three different cultural groups. Scott and Charteris (1986) used photographs of the gestures devised by Morris et al. (1979) and tested these with South Africans, both blacks and whites. Safadi and Valentine’s (1988) investigator and encoder were one and the same; the 26 gestures common to classroom interactions were chosen on the basis of the researcher’s teaching experience and conversations with associates.

Overall, both the NC0 group and CO group correctly decoded a high percentage (89%) of the Canadian generated gestures. This is not totally unexpected, as populations such as these have been part of the Canadian multicultural mixture for many generations and may have left their ges- tural imprint. Gestures typically used by Canadian-born people may be influenced by this cultural mosaic.

An additional fact was that these two particular groups of new Cana- dians were college-bound students in English as a Second Language classes and were most likely to have had some previous experiences with


the gestures used by the host culture. This experience may have origi- nated from any prior visit to Canada or prior to immigration to Canada via film, TV, and access to Canadian tourists in their native countries. Then too, in learning English as a Second Language, these students would most likely have focused more on, or been more sensitive to, nonverbal language such as gestures to supplement and/or clarify what was being said.

These new Canadian students obtained higher percentages of correct identification of the meaning of the gestures than of the recognition of them. Perhaps these students were not afraid to make a “best-guess” answer and might have tended to underestimate their knowledge of the gestures presented (“Do you recognize this gesture?” versus “What’s the meaning of this gesture?“). Very high correct scores were achieved on the majority of the test items. As previously mentioned, this could have been due to such factors as the nature of the test construction, the populations that participated, and the multicultural and multilingual make-up of today’s Cgnadian society.

The NC0 female group (from countries in the Orient) showed the lowest recognition (67vo), the least usage, and the least frequency for the gestures used, yet they still reported substantial correct identification (86%). They showed particular difficulty in recognizing the gestures in the disapproving and questioning categories. Perhaps this was so because Oriental women have been taught not to implement such gestures in public social interactions and therefore wouldn’t admit to recognizing these types of gestures as much as the other gestures because of the potentially offensive nature. They also reported less use and frequency of use of these gestures. Politeness and gentleness are well known virtues that are taught in oriental cultures (Kong, 1985; Ramsey, 1984; Saeki & Borow, 1985), particularly to females. An earlier study by Wolfgang and Josefowitz (1978) demonstrated the importance of harmonious interpersonal relationships to the Chinese immigrant population in Canada and also found that the Chinese student immigrants they studied were concerned that their self-presentation was nonoffensive and that their social interactions were nonabrasive.

The notion of misunderstanding of gestures was dealt with in some detail by Schneller (1988). In his study the recognition scores were quite high overall (85%), compared to the correct decoding (20%) in two studies. When there is such a phenomenon, there is a high probability of misunderstanding. That is, the decoder thinks s/he recognizes the gesture, but in fact doesn’t know its intended meaning. This can be a dan- gerous situation in intercultural encounters. In contrast, in the present study, the probability for misunderstanding was quite low. Here, recognition scores were generally lower than the correct identification scores for the NC0 group and CO group. Unlike Schneller’s (1988) Israeli study, the gestures in the present study were generated by members of


the host culture who were ethnically homogeneous, and the decoders, although foreign-born and of divergent cultures, had historical roots with the host cultural and experiences with the host culture gestures (e.g., media, face-to-face interactions, etc.).

In terms of the certainty factor, the results of this research showed that the degree of certainty was primarily in the high range. In discussing the notion of panculturalism, most researchers have referred primarily to the correct meaning of the gesture. In the present study, the pancultural quality of the Canadian gesture sample was found not only in relation to interpretive agreement but also in a high level of agreement between the three groups in terms of their certainty of the meaning of the gesture. This should allow a decoder to react to a gesture with a relatively strong level of conviction when decoding the gesture. In using the model proposed by Schneller (1988), which related the certainty factor to communicative quality, the results of this study indicated that with a combination of high certainty and high correct interpretive agreement, there would be less chance of false decoding. Thus the communicative quality of the Canadian-generated gestures would be generally high. To obtain a fuller picture of the notion of panculturalism of gestures, other factors such as certainty and recognition should be included in future studies.

There were some limitations relating to the generality of the results of this research. The gestures used were primarily emblems. It is not known if similar results would occur with nonemblems (e.g., illustrators, ba- tons). An additional limitation was that the size of sample 2 could have been larger. Another limitation was that the gestures were portrayed by white Anglo-Celtic Canadians. In future research, encoders should represent different races and ethnic groups in order to give a truer reflection of the multicultural and multiracial nature of the Canadian population. The results from the Oriental female group showed that certain types of emblems (disapproving and questioning) were poorly identified and have implications for future research. For instance, would similar results be obtained if the gestures shown had been generated within their own Oriental cultures? Would these results have been different with female participants from NC0 cultures in Canada for longer periods of time? How much of the results could be attributed to the dynamics of Canadian-Oriental interaction? Lastly, in this study both CO and NC0 groups decoded another culture’s gestures. As Anglo-Celtic Canadians are generally thought of as a noncontact-oriented culture (Montague, 1971), what differences would be found if the gestures to be identified had come from a CO culture?

REFERENCES

ARGYLE, M. (1975). Bodily communication. New York: International Univer- sities Press.


BRIGHAM, J. C., & BARKOWITZ, P. (1978). Do “they all look alike?” The effect of race, sex, experience and attitudes on the ability to recognize faces. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8,306-3 18.

BRIGHAM, J. C., & WILLIAMSON, N. L. (1979). Cross-racial recognition and age: When you’re over 60 do they still “all look alike?” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 218-222.

CREIDER, C. (1977). Towards a description of East African gestures. Sign Language Studies, 14, l-20.

DAVIS, F. (1973):Inside intuition: What we know about nonverbal communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.

EFRON, D. (1972). Gesture, race and culture. The Hague: Mouton. (original work published 1941).

EIBL-EIBESFELDT, I. (1979). Universals in human expressive behavior. In A. Wolfgang (Ed.), Nonverbal behavior: Applications and cultural implications. New York: Academic Press.

EKMAN, P. (Ed.) (1982). Emotion in the human face (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

EKMAN, P., & FRIESEN, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49-98.

EKMAN, P. & FRIESEN, W. V. (1972). Hand movements. Journal of Commu- nications, 22, 353-374.

EKMAN, P., & FRIESEN, W. V. (1975). Unmaking the face: A guide to recognizing emotions from facial expressions. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

HARRISON, R. (1984). Past problems and future directions in nonverbal behavior. In A. Wolfgang (Ed.), Nonverbal behavior: Perspectives, applications, intercultural insights. Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe.

HINDE, R. A. (1974) Biological bases of human social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

IZARD, C. (1971). The face of emotion. New York Appleton-Century-Crofts. IZARD, C. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum. KENDON, A. (1984). Did gestures have the happiness to escape the curse at the

confusion of Babel? In A. Wolfgang (Ed.), Nonverbal behavior: Perspectives, applications and intercultural insights. Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe, Inc.

KIRK, L., & BURTON, M. (1976). Physical versus semantic classification of nonverbal forms: A cross-cultural analysis. Semiotica, 17, 315-337.

KONG, S. (1985). Counselling Chinese immigrants: Issues and answers. In R. Samuda & A. Wolfgang (Eds.), Intercultural counselling and assessment: A globalperspective. Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe.

LEACH, E. R. (1972). The influence of cultural context on nonverbal communication in man. In R. A. Hinde (Ed.), Nonverbal communication. Cambridge: The University Press.

MONTAGUE, A. (1971). Touching: Human significance of the skin. New York: Perennial Library.

MORRIS, D., COLLETT, P., MARSH, P., O’SHAUGHNESSY, M. (1979). Gestures: Their origins and distribution. New York: Stein & Day.

RAMSEY, S. (1984). Double vision: Nonverbal behavior East and West. In A.


Wolfgang (Ed.), Nonverbal behavior: Perspectives, applications and intercultural insights. Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe.

ROSENTHAL, R., HALL, J. A., DIMATTEO, R., ROGERS, L. &ARCHER, D. (1979). Sensitivity to nonverbal communications. The PONS test. In A. Wolfgang (Ed.), Nonverbal behavior: Applications and cultural implications. New York: Academic Press.

SAEKI, C., & BOROW, H. (1985). Counselling and psychotherapy: East and West. In P. Pedersen (Ed.), Handbook of crosscultural counselling and ther- apy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

SAFADI, M., & VALENTINE, C. A. (1988). Emblematic gestures among He- brew speakers in Israel. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 327-361.

SAITZ, R., & CERVENKA, E. J. (1972). Handbook of gestures: Columbia and the United States. The Hague: Mouton.

SCHNELLER, R. (1985). Heritage and changes in the nonverbal language of Ethiopian newcomers. Israeli Social Science Research, 3(1-2), 33-54.

SCHNELLER, R. (1988). The Israeli experience of crosscultural misunderstanding: Insights and lessons. In F. Poyatos (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives in nonverbal communication (pp. 153-173). Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe.

SCOTT P. A., & CHARTERIS, J. (1986). Gesture identification: Southern African ratings compared with European responses. International Journal of Psychology, 21,753-767.

SPARHAWK, C. M. (1978). Contrastive-identificational features of Persian gesture. Semiotica, 24,49-86.

WOLFGANG, A. (1979). The teacher and nonverbal behavior in the multicultural classroom. In A. Wolfgang (Ed.), Nonverbal behavior: Applications and cultural implications. New York: Academic Press.

WOLFGANG, A. (1980). A multiculturalproject. The development of an inter- racialfacial recognition test: Phase ZZZ, a comparison between New Canadians, West Indians, and Canadians sensitivity to inter-racial facial expressions and social distance. Unpublished manuscript, Ontario Institute for Studies in Edu- cation, Toronto.

WOLFGANG, A. (1984). State of the art of nonverbal behavior in intercultural counseling. In A. Wolfgang (Ed.), Nonverbal behavior: Perspectives, applications and intercultural insights. Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe, Inc.

WOLFGANG, A. (1986). A multicultural project: Development of a Canadian gesture inventory. Progress Report. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

WOLFGANG, A. (1987, May). Intercultural training of counselors for the year 2000. Paper presented at the 13th Congress of the International Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research. Universite du Quebec a Mon- treal, Montreal, Quebec.

WOLFGANG, A., & COHEN, M. (1988). Sensitivity of Canadians, Latin Americans, Ethiopians, and Israelis to interracial facial expressions of emotions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 139-151.

WOLFGANG, A., & JOSEFOWITZ, N. (1978). Chinese immigrant values change with length of time in Canada and value differences compared to Canadian students. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 2, 130-135.


WYLIE, L. (1977). Beaux gestes: A guide to French body talk. New York: E. P. Dutton.

ABSTRACT TRANSLATIONS

Cette etude visait essentiellement a presenter et a valider un certain nom- bre de gestes que font les Canadiens dans diffeerentes situations, et a deter- miner leur portee. Les 100 personnes qui y ont participe etaient divisees en trois groupes. Le groupe 1A faisait les 25 gestes sur lesquels Porte cette etude, le groupe 1B en faisait une demonstration devant une camera; le deuxitme groupe Ctait compose de Canadiens de naissance; le troisieme d’etudiants canadiens nCs a P&ranger et suivant des tours d’anglais langue seconde. Ces derniers, qui ttaient presque tous au Canada depuis moins d’un an, venaient soit de cultures ouvertes, (Amtrique latine, Moyen- Orient, pays mediterrantens), soit de cultures fermees (Japon, Chine, Hong Kong). Les gestes faits par les Canadiens de naissance d’origine anglo-celtique presentaient une importante validation intraculturelle. Les Canadiens de naissance ont beaucoup mieux decode et identifie les gestes, mais les nouveaux Canadiens, quelle que soit leur origine, ont eux aussi obtenus des rtsultats relativement Cleves. 11 n’en demeure pas moins que, plus le groupe linguistico-culture1 est proche des Canadiens, plus il est apte a identifier les gestes faits par des Canadiens. (author-supplied abstract)

El objetivo principal de este estudio fue generar y valider una serie de gestos usados por canadienses en una variedad de situaciones sociales y testear la consistencia de estos gestos. Hubo 3 poblaciones-muestra, siendo en su total 100 participantes. La muestra 1A produjo 10s 25 gestos usados en el estudio, la muestra 1B eran actores que domostraror 10s gestos en frente a una camera; la muestra 2 eran oriundos de Canada; y la muestra 3 eran personas nacidas en el extranjero, “nuevos canadienses” quitn toma- ban clases de “Ingles coma Segunda Lengua”. Estos ‘nuevos canadienses’ provenian de culturas con orientation al contact0 coma ser Latin0 y Su- damerica, paises de1 Mediterraneo y de1 Medio Oriente; o provenian de culturas no orientadas al contacto, coma ser Japon, China, y Hong Kong. Antetodo, la poblacion de esta muestra se hallaba hate menos de un aiio en Canada. El muestreo de gestos generados por 10s participantes oriundos de Canada de origen Anglo-Celtic0 mostro un nivel alto de validation intercultural. Pese a que 10s oriundos de Canada tuvieron un puntaje signifi- cantemente superior en la decoficacion yen el reconocimiento, 10s ‘nuevos candienses’, de culturas que se orientaban al contact0 y las que no, tambitn lograron un puntaje relativamente alto en decodoficacion y en reconoci- mento. A mayor cercania de1 grupo linguist0 y cultural a 10s canadienses, mayor era la habilidad de reconocer 10s gestos generados por canadienses. (author-supplied abstract)

Documents

The ability of new Canadians to decode gestures generated by Canadians of Anglo-Celtic backgrounds