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

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?

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)

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

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

Method 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

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

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

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

Results cont’d

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).

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