Introduction Theroleofinterpersonaltouchhasbeenstudiedinothercommunicationfieldsandhasshownthatahandshakeorotherformofappropriateinterpersonaltouch(AIT)hasrenderedfavorableresultsinrapportbuilding,comfortandreceptivitytomessaging(Fisher1976,WycoffandHolly1990,Routasalo1999).Thisstudyaimstodetermineiftheuseofahandshakepriortointerpretiveprogrammingwillincreasethepositivityofperceptionofavisitortowardtheinterpreterand/orthemessagesharedbytheinterpreter.Researchersarealsoseekingtheviewpointsofprofessionalsinthefieldofinterpretationaboutthecurrentuseandperceptionoftouchinthefieldofinterpretationthroughafocusgroupofpractitioners.Throughthesetwostudies,researchershopetodiscernwhetherAIThasmorepotentialasaresearchandfield-approvedpracticeinthefieldofinterpretation.MethodsResearchersusedasurveyinstrumenttomeasureeachvisitor’sperceptionofaninterpreterandtheinterpreter’smessageincontrolandexperimentalgroups.Bothgroupstookpartinaninterpretiveprogramthatintentionallyincludesacontroversialtopic.Theexperimentalgroupreceivedawelcomehandshakepriortotheprogram.Controlgroupsreceivedthesameprogrammingwithoutahandshake.Eachpersonwasaskedpriortoturningintheirsurveyiftheyheardthesurveyannouncementtoensuretheyviewedthefullprogram.Followingtheprogram,surveyswereavailabletoparticipantstomeasuretheparticipant’sperceptionoftheinterpreterandmessageusingaLikert-scalebuiltonacredibilitystudybyApplemanandSundar(2016).ApplemanandSundarexaminednumerousdescriptorstodistillthebestadjectivesavailabletodescribebothanindividual’scredibilityandthecredibilityofthemessage.TheseadjectiveswereusedonaLikert-scaletodeterminesourcecredibility.Todeterminethesamplesize,weusedamarginoferrorcalculatorprovidedbytheAmericanResearchGroup,Inc.(2000).OursamplesizewasbasedonthetotalannualnumberofparticipantsineducationalprogramminginthisareaoftheGrandfatherMountainStewardshipFoundationnaturepark(n=57,500).Researcherschosetosurveyatleast400participantsattendingprogramswithfourseparateinterpreters,whichgaveusamarginoferrorof+/-5.64%atthe95%confidenceinterval.Approximatelyonehalfoftheparticipantssurveyedwillbeinthecontrolgroupandtheotherhalfwillbeintheexperimentalgroup(Table1).Twointerpretersaremaleandtwoarefemale.Allparticipantsinthesurveymustbeovertheageof18.Thisisclarifiedintheannouncementtopotentialparticipants.Thegroupsweresurveyedinalternatingfashiononthesameday.Arecordofeachsurveywaspairedwiththesurveyresultsinordertoensuresurveysarekeptwiththecorrectgroup.Adatasheetwascompletedpriortoconductingthesurvey(Figure3),andcompletedsurveyswerefiledinanenvelopewiththedatasheet.Eachprogramandcorrespondingsurveyswereassignedanumberforfilingsotheycouldbereferencedintheresults.Anyincompletesurveyswerewithdrawnfromthedataset.

Researching the Role of Appropriate Interpersonal Touch (AIT) in Interpretive Programs Mickey Shortt, Jr. Dr. Shelby Laird, Dr. Ray Darville, Dr. Pat Stephens-Williams

InitialResultsAllcompletedsurveyformswereenteredintoSPSSStatisticsforanalysis.Thesurveysoughttomeasuretheperceptionofthecontentinthreewaysandtheperceptionoftheinterpreter’scredibilityinfourways.Theanalysisrevealedthatallsevenoftheseratingswerehigherintheexperimentalgroupcomparedwiththecontrolgroup.P-values(Sig2-tailedinfigure2)werelowindicatingacorrelationbetweenahandshake(experimental)andhighscores.Furtheranalysisiscurrentlyinprogress.

Group Statistics

Figure 1 Group Type N Mean Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Content Score Control 230 6.6130 .65992 .04351 Experimental 172 6.7892 .41109 .03135

Content Score 1 Control 230 6.56 .726 .048 Experimental 172 6.75 .497 .038

Content Score 2 Control 230 6.57 .811 .053 Experimental 172 6.76 .514 .039

Content Score 3 Control 230 6.71 .625 .041 Experimental 173 6.84 .395 .030

Interpreter Score Control 230 6.5946 .58317 .03845 Experimental 173 6.7370 .49288 .03747

Interpreter Score 1 Control 230 6.40 .937 .062 Experimental 173 6.60 .730 .056

Interpreter Score 2 Control 230 6.69 .535 .035 Experimental 173 6.80 .494 .038

Interpreter Score 3 Control 230 6.62 .668 .044 Experimental 173 6.78 .559 .042

Interpreter Score 4 Control 230 6.70 .571 .038 Experimental 173 6.82 .467 .035

Figure 2

DiscussionInitialresultsindicatethatahandshakecanincreasethepositivitytowardamessageandthevisitor’sperceptionofaninterpreter.Theuseofphysicaltouch,withappropriateboundariesandawarenessofavisitor’scomfortwithtouch,maybeameanstoestablishrapportandovercomebarrierstounderstanding—especiallywithcontroversialtopics.Itisrecommendedthatfurtherresearchonthistopicisconductedinotherparksandtypesofprogramming—particularlyinfacilitateddialogueexperiences—todiscerntheimpactofphysicaltouchonvisitors.

MickeyShortt,Jr.ispursuingaMasterofScienceinResourceInterpretationatStephenF.AustinStateUniversity.HereceivedhisBachelorofScienceinBiologyfromLees-McRaeCollege.HehasservedasaparkrangerandnaturalistwiththeNationalParkServiceand

othernon-profitorganizations.