Sample APA-Style Paper 1

Running head: BODY LANGUAGE AND PERCIEVED CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 1

Student Body Language: The Effect of Open and Closed Body Language on

Instructors’ Perceptions of Student Conscientiousness

Name Deleted for Anonymity

University of Minnesota

BODY LANGUAGE AND PERCIEVED CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 2

Abstract

Past research has suggested that people’s body language can influence the way others perceive

their personality traits. This study attempted to determine whether college instructors would

perceive a student showing open body language as more conscientious than a student showing

closed body language. Instructors were asked to read a short description of a student alongside a

picture that showed the student with either open or closed body language and then rate the

student on five conscientiousness-related characteristics. Instructors that saw the open body

language picture and those that saw the closed body language picture did not differ significantly

in their evaluations of any of the five traits. These results may indicate that a student’s body

language does not influence the way instructors perceive his or her conscientiousness. However,

several methodological problems may have contributed to the lack of significant results,

suggesting a need for further research on the topic.


Student Body Language: The Effect of Open and Closed Body Language on Instructors’

Perceptions of Student Conscientiousness

The ability of body language to influence the perceptions of others is a widely studied

phenomenon, and evidence has suggested that body language and other nonverbal cues play an

even larger role in the perception of personality traits than accompanying verbal messages

(Tepper & Haase, 1978). In social environments in which interpersonal interaction is a major

element of success, body language can thus be an important factor in portraying desirable

personality traits. Accordingly, understanding the influence that different forms of body

language can have on other people’s perceptions is of great importance to any individual striving

for social and communicative effectiveness.

Numerous studies have examined the effects that body language and other nonverbal cues

have in different social contexts, such as therapists in counseling settings. In a study conducted

by Tepper and Haase (1978), clients and counselors evaluated the empathy, respect, and

genuineness of counselors displaying combinations of verbal messages and various types of body

language such as trunk lean, eye contact and facial expression during a videotaped session. They

concluded that the nonverbal cues played a critical role in perceptions of these qualities, finding

that nonverbal cues had two times the importance of the verbal message in clients’ perceptions of

the empathy of the counselor, five times the importance in perceptions of genuineness, and 23

times the importance in perceptions of respect.

Additional studies have also supported the importance of therapist body language in

counseling settings. Maurer and Tindall (1983) studied the effect of postural congruence, defined

as the counselor mirroring the client’s limb positions and movements when facing each other, on

clients’ evaluations of counselor empathy. They found that the clients rated the empathy of


counselors who practiced postural congruence during the session significantly higher than they

rated counselors who did not. Furthermore, when Hermansson, Webster, and McFarland (1988)

studied the effect of counselor’s postural lean during sessions on clients’ perceptions of

counselors’ intensity, empathic understanding, respect and genuineness, they found that a

backwards leaning posture had a significant positive impact on clients perceptions of intensity

and respect.

Aside from therapeutic settings, the impact of body language on evaluation of personality

traits has also been studied in other social situations. Sterrett (1978) examined the effect that the

intensity, defined as the frequency and presence of nonverbal cues such as eye contact, hand

gestures, level of dress, and length of pause before response, had on mid-level managers’

evaluations of an applicant at a videotaped job interview. He found that while intensity of body

language had no significant effect on the managers’ evaluations of the interviewee’s motivation,

self-confidence, self-organization, responsibility, verbal ability, intelligence, and sincerity, it did

have a significant effect on their perceptions of the applicant’s ambition, with female managers

associating high intensity body language with lower ambition and male managers associating it

with higher ambition.

Research has also discovered that body language can have effects on attitudes beyond

evaluation of personality traits, such as in a study conducted by McGinley, LeFevre and

McGinley (1975) on the effect of body language on opinion change in others. In this study,

participants completed identical attitude questionnaires before and after viewing pictures of a girl

displaying open (limbs away from the body, trunk exposed) and closed (limbs pressed close to

the body, trunk protected) body language. Before viewing the slides, participants were told the

girl’s viewpoints on controversial social questions raised in the questionnaire. The researchers


found that participants who viewed the girl with open body posture significantly shifted their

disagreeing opinions closer to the positions they were told were held by the girl. Thus, body

language has been shown to be capable of not only affecting evaluation of others’ personality

traits, but also personal beliefs and opinions.

While the studies mentioned previously demonstrate that body language can have

significant effect on others’ perceptions and beliefs in professional social situations such as job

interviews and counseling sessions, research remains to be done on another area in which social

interaction is important: the communication between students and instructors in academic

settings. The experiment conducted by McGinley et al. (1975) suggests that body language can

have an effect on an individual’s agreement with another’s opinion. In the context of an

instructor-student relationship, this could possibly have an influence on the instructor’s

evaluation of the student’s work, as well as on the nature of the interaction between the instructor

and student. To begin to explore this topic, it is important to first examine if body language has

an effect on instructors’ evaluations of students’ academically important traits.

Our study attempted to explore this by examining college instructors’ impressions of

conscientiousness in students. Conscientiousness, one of the “big five” major personality traits,

involves characteristics such as responsibility, self-discipline, thoughtfulness, and organization,

all of which are major aspects of academic success (Barrick & Mount, 1991). In this study,

instructors were given a short description of the academic abilities and habits of a fictional

student, as well as a photograph of the student displaying either open or closed body language.

The instructors were then given a questionnaire and asked to rate their initial impressions of the

student on several conscientiousness-related traits. Based on the positive outcomes associated

with open body position in the McGinley et al. (1975) study, we hypothesized that instructors


who viewed the picture of the student displaying open body language would rate the student

higher on conscientiousness-related traits than instructors who viewed the picture of the student

displaying closed body language.

Method

Participants

Thirty participants, 19 female and 11 male, were involved in the study. All participants

were actively involved in teaching positions at the University of Minnesota. Twenty two were

graduate level instructors or teaching assistants, seven were lecturers or teaching specialists, and

one was a non-tenured professor. Participants were selected using a convenience sampling of

instructors the researchers were familiar with through work, current classes, or past classes.

Participants were contacted during available free time, informed about the study, and asked if

they were interested in participating. The participants ranged from ages 23 to 58 (M = 33.21, SD

= 10.36). Twenty-two of the participants identified themselves as Caucasian, seven as Asian or

Pacific Islander, and one did not provide racial information. No compensation for participation

was offered.

Materials

In order to prevent our participants from detecting the research question, participants

were provided with some information they would likely find relevant to evaluating a student’s

conscientiousness. To this end, participants were provided with a fictional two paragraph

description of a student named "Jessica" in which details were given on Jessica's academic

achievements, study habits, hobbies, work status, and class participation. The description was

phrased to give a neutral impression of conscientiousness; facts suggesting a higher level of

conscientiousness were paired with facts suggesting a lower level of conscientiousness.


Examples of the information provided about Jessica in this section are sentences such as

"Although she tries to get to class on time, she is usually a few minutes late" and "Jessica turns in

nearly all of her homework on time but only when she is confident about her answers.” This

description can be seen in its entirety in the copies attached in Appendices A and B.

To display “Jessica’s” body language, a single 1x3 inch color picture showing Jessica

sitting in a chair was placed to the immediate left of the written description. The subject used in

these pictures was a blond-haired, Caucasian young woman wearing a blank white shirt, against

a plain white background. To manipulate body language, two different pictures were used. On

half of the questionnaires, Jessica was shown displaying open body language: her arms hang

loosely by her sides with her hands placed loosely in her legs, and her legs are not crossed. On

the other half of the questionnaires, Jessica was shown displaying closed body language, with her

arms crossed across her torso and one knee crossed over the other, held behind the crossed arms.

In both pictures, “Jessica” has a neutral facial expression. The open and closed pictures can be

seen in Appendices A and B, respectively.

To measure the participants’ evaluations of the student’s conscientiousness, a short

questionnaire was constructed that consisted of five questions asking participants to provide their

impressions of the student based on five qualities associated with academic conscientiousness:

responsibility, self-discipline, organization, motivation, and commitment to studies. This

questionnaire immediately followed the written description and picture. Participants evaluated

the student on a four point scale, with “1” being not demonstrating the trait at all to “4” being

demonstrating a high degree of the trait. Following these five questions were an additional four

questions gathering demographic information about race, gender, teaching position, and age.

Both forms of the study used identical questions in the same order. Complete copies of both


forms of the questionnaire can be seen attached in Appendices A and B.

Procedure

If the participants expressed interest in participating in the study, they were given either the

survey that included the open body language picture or the survey that included the closed body

language picture, determined randomly. An informed consent paragraph was placed at the top of

the survey notifying participants of the anonymity of their responses and their options to stop

answering, withdraw answers, or skip questions. Following the informed consent paragraph,

participants were given instructions to “read the following description and then answer the

questions by circling the appropriate number below.” Placed after this was the description and

picture of the student, followed by the survey questions.

Following their completion of the survey, participants were provided with a written

debriefing statement describing the nature, variables, and goal of the study. This statement can

be seen attached in Appendix C.

Results

Five dependent variables, measured by the five questions on the survey, were separately

assessed in this study: instructors’ impressions of the student’s levels of responsibility, self-

discipline, organization, motivation, and commitment. These characteristics were evaluated by

the instructors on a four point scale. Two tailed independent t-tests were performed on each

dependent variable to test whether the instructors shown the form with open body position

evaluated the student differently than the instructors shown the form with closed body position.

Analyses showed that the open body language group (M = 2.77, SD = .44) and the closed

body language group (M = 2.65, SD = .70) did not differ significantly on their ratings of

responsibility, t(28) = .55, p = .59. Similarly, the open body language group (M = 2.46, SD = .52)


and the closed body language group (M = 2.47, SD = .52) did not differ significantly on their

ratings of self discipline, t(28) = -.05, p = .96. No significant difference was found between the

open body language group (M = 2.39, SD = .65) and the closed body language group (M = 2.41,

SD = .62) on their ratings of organization, t(28) = -.12, p = .91. The open body language group

(M = 2.39, SD = .77) and the closed body language group (M = 2.65, SD = .49) did not differ

significantly on their ratings of motivation, t(28) = -.1.14, p = .27. Finally, analyses showed no

significant difference between the open body language group (M = 2.62, SD = .65) and the

closed body language group (M = 2.59, SD = .62) on their ratings of commitment, t(28) = .12, p

= .91. This result is illustrated in Figure 1.

Discussion

The results of this experiment did not support our hypothesis that instructors who saw the

form with open body position would rate the student more highly on characteristics of

conscientiousness than instructors who saw the form with closed body language; no significant

differences were found for any of the five conscientiousness-related characteristics that were

evaluated. These results are also inconsistent with the findings of past research, such as the study

by McGinley et al. (1975) that found that open body language positively affected opinion change

in others. This study fails to extend those findings into the realm of instructor ratings of student

conscientiousness.

Several methodological problems exist with this study which may have contributed to the

lack of significant results. In the study by McGinley et al. (1975), the pictures showing the

student’s body language were projected onto a large screen, and multiple pictures were shown

for an extended length of time. The pictures in the present study may have been too small and

viewed for too short a time (the time it took to read the paragraph next to the picture) to have a


significant effect on the instructors’ impressions. Furthermore, while the participants in the

McGinley et al. (1975) study viewed the information about the student and the pictures of the

student at separate times, the pictures and information were provided simultaneously and side by

side in this study, which may have focused participants’ visual attention too much on the text and

not enough on the picture.

Additionally, the rating scale provided on the questionnaire may have been too limited to

detect an effect, if one did exist. Because the paragraph describing the student was phrased in a

neutral manner, it was unlikely that instructors would choose either of the extreme options,

leaving only two responses for the wide range of possible impressions in between. Even if any

effect was not strong enough to switch the instructors’ impressions from negative to positive, or

vice versa, it could have shifted the impressions from somewhat positive to somewhat more or

less positive, or from somewhat negative to somewhat more or less negative, an effect which

would not have been detected on our questionnaire.

Future studies examining this topic would need to increase participants’ exposure to the

student’s body language, either by conducting the study in a live situation or by increasing the

visibility of the picture in a way that does not alert the participants of the purpose of the research.

In addition, a more sensitive evaluation scale would be needed to detect subtle effects, if any

exist, that the different types of body language have on instructors’ ratings of the student’s

conscientiousness.

While additional research is needed to more conclusively determine if an effect exists or

not, it is also possible that the non-significant results of this student accurately reflect the reality

of the academic environment and that a student’s body language does not make a significant

difference on college instructor’s evaluations of his or her conscientiousness. If this is the case, it


reflects positively on college instructors as it would suggest that instructors fairly base their

opinions of students on the students’ academic actions and behavior instead of on less academic

criteria such as body language.


References

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Hermansson, G. L., Webster, A. C., & McFarland, K. (1988). Counselor deliberate postural lean

and communication of facilitative conditions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35,

149-153.

Maurer, R. E., & Tindall, J. H. (1983). Effect of postural congruence on client's perception of

counselor empathy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 158-163.

McGinley, H., LeFevre, R., & McGinley, P. (1975). The influence of a communicator's body

position on opinion change in others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31,

686-690.

Sterrett, J. H. (1978). The job interview: Body language and perceptions of potential

effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 388-390.

Tepper, D. T., & Haase, R. F. (1978). Verbal and nonverbal communication of facilitative

conditions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25, 35-44.


Appendix A

Form A: Open Body Language

You are being asked to complete a questionnaire as part of a class project in a research methods course in the Department of Psychology at the University of Minnesota. If you choose to participate, no identifying information will be gathered from you, so it will be impossible to associate you with your responses. If you choose to answer the questions, you may stop answering at any time. You may withdraw your responses at any time, including after you have completed the survey. You may ask questions before or after you complete the questionnaire. I also can tell you how to contact the course instructor if you have questions for him. Instructions: Please read the following description and then answer the questions by circling the appropriate number below.

Jessica is a twenty year old sophomore studying nutrition. She attends all classes where attendance is required but rarely attends large lectures where attendance is not taken. Before exams, she often goes to office hours to review the topics covered in class with her professors. Although she tries to get to class on time, she is usually a few minutes late. Jessica turns in nearly all of her homework on time, but does not do well in exams because she is often tired due to cramming the night before. She occasionally participates in class but only when she is confident about her answers. Jessica works part time at a coffee shop. She is a member of the nutrition club which meets once a month. She enjoys playing badminton several times a month. She also enjoys reading in her free time and hanging out with friends. Jessica is unsure if she wants to attend graduate school because of the amount of work involved.

Questions: 1. What is your impression of this student’s level of responsibility? Not responsible Somewhat Somewhat Very at all irresponsible responsible responsible 1 2 3 4 2. What is your impression of this student’s level of self-discipline? Not self discipline Somewhat Somewhat Very at all undisciplined self disciplined self disciplined 1 2 3 4


3. What is your impression of this student’s level of organization? Not organized Somewhat Somewhat Very at all unorganized organized organized 1 2 3 4 4. What is your impression of this student’s level of motivation to succeed in her courses? Not motivated Somewhat Somewhat Very at all unmotivated motivated motivated 1 2 3 4 5. What is your impression of this student’s commitment to her studies? Not committed Somewhat Somewhat Very at all uncommitted committed committed 1 2 3 4 6. What is your age? ______________ 7. What is your gender?

a) Male b) Female

8. What sort of teaching position do you hold? (Examples: Graduate instructor, tenured professor, non-tenured professor, etc.)

________________________________________________________ 9. What race do you consider yourself to be?

a) Caucasian b) African American c) Hispanic d) Asian/Pacific Islander e) Native American f) Other (please specify) ___________________


Appendix B

Form B: Closed Body Language

You are being asked to complete a questionnaire as part of a class project in a research methods course in the Department of Psychology at the University of Minnesota. If you choose to participate, no identifying information will be gathered from you, so it will be impossible to associate you with your responses. If you choose to answer the questions, you may stop answering at any time. You may withdraw your responses at any time, including after you have completed the survey. You may ask questions before or after you complete the questionnaire. I also can tell you how to contact the course instructor if you have questions for him. Instructions: Please read the following description and then answer the questions by circling the appropriate number below.

Jessica is a twenty year old sophomore studying nutrition. She attends all classes where attendance is required but rarely attends large lectures where attendance is not taken. Before exams, she often goes to office hours to review the topics covered in class with her professors. Although she tries to get to class on time, she is usually a few minutes late. Jessica turns in nearly all of her homework on time, but does not do well in exams because she is often tired due to cramming the night before. She occasionally participates in class but only when she is confident about her answers. Jessica works part time at a coffee shop. She is a member of the nutrition club which meets once a month. She enjoys playing badminton several times a month. She also enjoys reading in her free time and hanging out with friends. Jessica is unsure if she wants to attend graduate school because of the amount of work involved.

Questions: 1. What is your impression of this student’s level of responsibility? Not responsible Somewhat Somewhat Very at all irresponsible responsible responsible 1 2 3 4 2. What is your impression of this student’s level of self-discipline? Not self discipline Somewhat Somewhat Very at all undisciplined self disciplined self disciplined 1 2 3 4


3. What is your impression of this student’s level of organization? Not organized Somewhat Somewhat Very at all unorganized organized organized 1 2 3 4 4. What is your impression of this student’s level of motivation to succeed in her courses? Not motivated Somewhat Somewhat Very at all unmotivated motivated motivated 1 2 3 4 5. What is your impression of this student’s commitment to her studies? Not committed Somewhat Somewhat Very at all uncommitted committed committed 1 2 3 4 6. What is your age? ______________ 7. What is your gender?

a) Male b) Female

8. What sort of teaching position do you hold? (Examples: Graduate instructor, tenured professor, non-tenured professor, etc.)

________________________________________________________ 9. What race do you consider yourself to be?

a) Caucasian b) African American c) Hispanic d) Asian/Pacific Islander e) Native American f) Other (please specify) ___________________


Appendix C

Debriefing Statement

Thank you for participating in our study. We are using the data you supplied to determine if body language has an effect on the perception of a student’s conscientiousness. You were given one of two surveys; the two surveys were identical except for the position the student was seated in (an open or closed body position). The other survey was given to other participants. We are using the data to see if there is a significant difference between the ratings of conscientiousness based on the student’s body language which was displayed on the two different surveys. Because the surveys were randomly assigned to participants, any difference between the two surveys can be credited to different perceptions of the body language displayed in the two pictures.


Figure 1. Mean instructor ratings of the student’s commitment to her studies for the open body

position and closed body position groups. Error bars represent standard deviations.

Sample APA-Style Paper 1

Documents

Transcript of Sample APA-Style Paper 1