Culture and Nonverbal Communication*

馮海榮 明尼蘇達大學德魯斯分校

Abstract：In today’s multicultural pluralistic world，a greater cultural sensitivity in both verbal and nonverbal communication is essential.This paper reviews literature on nonverbal communication from a cultural approach.It begins with an overview of cultural approaches to the study of nonverbal communication，and follows by reviewing recent efforts of theorizing culture and nonverbal communication.It then addresses cultural influences on channels of nonverbal behavior，including kinesics，proxemics，haptics，gaze，silence，paralanguage，and chronemics as well as the nonverbal behavior of facial expressions across cultures.The paper also reviews cultural space as a particular form of nonverbal communication and examines how cultural space defines our identity.Finally，this paper discusses implications for nonverbal communication in intercultural encounters.

Keywords：culture； context； nonverbal communication； intercultural communication； nonverbal communication across cultures

When people communicate with each other，two channels are employed simultaneously：verbal and nonverbal.Verbal communication transmits messages through words，written or spoken； nonverbal communication transmits messages through body language，wordless and behavioral.The verbal channel is an important tool in communication，but nonverbal signs are equally important.Nonverbal behaviors serve many functions collectively.They signal emotions，attitudes，physiological states，and other mental states； they illustrate speech and regulate the flow of conversation； they convey verbal messages，and they manipulate the body.Nonverbal communication conveys relational messages：information on how the speaker wants to be understood and viewed by the listener.Relational messages are communicated through nonverbal behavior，including facial expressions，eye gaze，posture，and even our tone of voice.Nonverbal behavior also communicates status and power.Broad，expansive gestures are associated with high status； conversely，holding the body in a tight closed position communicates low status.Given the wealth of information they communicate，it is no wonder that studies which have compared the relative contributions of verbal versus nonverbal in conveying messages report that the vast majority of the messages communicated are nonverbal.Nonverbal communication is a part of the “hidden dimension” of communication，a silent language，1Edward Hall, The Hidden Dimension (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Press, 1966), 4.and not paying attention to it means that one misses messages that are being conveyed.

Like verbal communication，nonverbal behavior is affected by many factors，some of which are innate and genetic，that produce universalities in nonverbal behavior.Despite the sizable similarities，abundant differences exist，most of which are cultural.Culture has a pervasive influence on nonverbal communication.Cultural differences exist because cultures have developed with different geographies，climates，economies，religions，and histories，each exerting unique influence.Simultaneously，nonverbal communicative behaviors reflect culture.

In this article，I first survey cultural approaches to the study of nonverbal communication and review recent efforts of theorizing culture and nonverbal communication.I then review literature examining cultural similarities and differences in various channels of nonverbal communication.Finally，I discuss implications for nonverbal communication in intercultural encounters.

Earlier Cultural Approach to the Study of Nonverbal Communication

Existing research from a cultural approach to nonverbal communication includes studies that focus more on cultural differences which reflects both the social-scientific approach and the interpretive approach to intercultural communication.The primary concern for the socialscientific approach is to examine cultural communication differences.The distinct values and behavior patterns shared by a group of people have been particularly emphasized as core elements of culture.For example，Hofstede （1991） defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the member of one group or category of people from another.”2Geert Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations (Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Book Press, 1991), 5.Interpretive approach focuses more on how cultural contexts influence communication.For instance，Spencer-Oatey（2000） defines culture as “a fuzzy set of attitudes，beliefs，behavioral conventions，and basic assumptions and values that are shared by a group of people，and that influence each member’s behavior and each member’s interpretations of the ‘meaning’ of other people’s behavior.”3Helen Spencer-Oatey, Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures (London: Continuum Press,2000), 4.

Mehrabian （1972/2007） documents earlier research on culture and nonverbal communication （i.e.，implicit behavior in his language）.4Albert Mehrabian, Nonverbal Communication (New York: Routledge Press, 1972/2007), 2-15.According to Mehrabian，Hall （1959，1966） was one of the first researchers to point out the difficulties encountered during an interaction between members of different cultures.5Edward Hall, The Hidden Dimension, 1-6; The Silent Language (Garden City: Doubleday Press, 1959), 9-13.Such difficulties can be accounted for by the unquestioned and implicit assumptions people make when they try to interpret the behaviors of others，whether they are from their own，or from a different，culture.In his book，Beyond Culture（1976），Hall referenced the idea of “context” as imperative for interpreting nonverbal cues.6Edward Hall, Beyond Culture (Garden City: Doubleday Press, 1976), 85-103 .Hall used the idea of “context” to delineate broad level differences between cultures，including the extent to which the members of a culture rely more or less on nonverbal cues in their interactions.Specifically，he noted that high-context cultures are particularly nonverbal in that less of their social meaning is encoded in what they say to one another.Cues available in the larger context，such as interactants’ relationships，are important ways of understanding behavior and determining what social actions are appropriate.In high-context cultures，such as China，for instance，knowing cultural rules and meanings is imperative.

Mehrabian （1972/2007） also reported a few empirical studies that tested how culture influenced nonverbal communication.7Albert Mehrabian, Nonverbal Communication (New York: Routledge Press, 1972/2007), 6.Efron’s （1941） observations of Jewish and Italian immigrants in the United States revealed a greater preference for closeness and touching among the Jews.Whereas the Jews made more frequent use of emphasis-type illustrators，the Italians had a greater preference for those illustrators that redundantly describe the shape of the object that is being referred to with words.Watson and Graves （1966） found Arab students more immediate in their implicit social behaviors in relation to each other than American students.8Michael O.Watson, and Theodore D.Graves, “Quantitative Research in Proxemics Behavior,” American Anthropologist 68, no.4 (August, 1966): 982-84.The Arabs oriented more directly toward each other，were closer，touched more，had more eye contact，and talked louder.In comparing the preferred immediacy levels of a set of five cultures，Little（1968） requested subjects of various national groups to position dolls relative to one another to portray a variety of social situations.9Kenneth B.Little, “Cultural Variations in Social Schemata.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 10, no.1(1968): 1-7.His findings indicated that，averaging over the different social situations，Greeks，Americans，Italians，Swedes，and Scots，in that order，assigned increasing distances between communicators.There are also two studies of immediacy preferences of various subcultures in the United States.Among his American subjects，Willis（1966） found that blacks greeted others at a greater distances than did whites；10Frank N.Jr.Willis, “Initial Speaking Distance as a Function of the Speakers’ Relationship,” Psychonomic Science 5, no.6 (1966): 1-2.this was especially the case when the persons being greeted were also blacks.Baxter （1970） replicated this finding.11James C.Baxter, “Interpersonal Spacing in Natural Settings,” Sociometry 33, no.4 (1970): 444-56.His observations of pairs of subjects visiting at a zoo showed that Mexicans stood closest to one another and Anglos next closest.Blacks selected the most distant positions.

This is corresponding to a recent review by Hall，Horgan，and Murphy（2019）.Senders’vocal qualities may be influenced by socioeconomic，regional，and cultural factors.For example，Japanese women’s pitch tends to be higher than Dutch women’s，perhaps due to greater societal pressures to appear feminine in the former than the latter cultural setting （Van Bezooijen，1995）.Brown and Lambert （1976） observed differences in the vocal qualities of blue- versus white-collar French Canadian workers.

Another cultural dimension that has influenced the study of nonverbal communication is the individualism/collectivism distinction （Hofstede，2001）.12Geert Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations,2nd ed (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2001), 209-78.Individualistic cultures are more nonverbally affiliative （Anderson，2003）.13Peter A.Andersen, “In Different Dimensions: Nonverbal Communication and Culture,” in Intercultural Communication:A Reader, 10th ed, eds.Larry A.Samovar and Richard E.Porter (Belmont: Wadsworth Press, 2003), 244.Individualistic cultures use more nonverbal behaviors such as facial expressions，touch，flirting，and other nonverbal behaviors.This might be due to the fact that people in individualistic cultures are less interdependent.People are more distanced from each other and individuals need to provide intimacy cues to make others feel closeness.However，in collectivist cultures，people are more interdependent and relationships are relatively stable without having to use more affiliative nonverbal behaviors to express closeness.

The cultural approach demonstrates that our larger social and cultural groups provide framings for how to use and understand nonverbal communication.It views nonverbal behaviors as learned and as understood largely within the communicative community in which it is situated.The emphasis is on what makes people within one cultural community alike and what makes people in different cultural communities potentially at odds with each other.Therefore，it identifies places where miscommunication can happen and suggests how people can communicate with greater cultural sensitivity.

Theorizing Nonverbal Communication across Cultures

Earlier work on culture and nonverbal communication has mostly been atheoretical.Recent works have tried to theorize nonverbal communication across cultures based on existing conceptual and empirical work，which helps avoid discussing nonverbal behaviors across cultures randomly while still aiming to understand the mechanisms of the seemingly different nonverbal behaviors.Below I review three frameworks for theorizing nonverbal communication across cultures.These perspectives help us understand nonverbal communication across cultures in a more systematic way.

Expressive-Reserved Conceptual Framework

Matsumoto and Hwang （2016） propose a framework of how culture influences nonverbal communication.14David Matsumoto and Hyisung C.Hwang, “The Cultural Bases of Nonverbal Communication,” in APA Handbook of Nonverbal Communication, eds.David Matsumoto, Hyisung C.Hwang, and Mark G.Frank (Washington: American Psychological Association, 2016), 77-101.They contend that culture influences behavior by creating norms through a mediator of “context.”15Ibid., 82-84.Nonverbal behaviors serve similar general functions across cultures；however，the norms governing those behaviors differ depending on the ecological-cultural context within which those behaviors occur.

At a broader level of ecological and environmental contexts，culture produces norms that provide guidelines for the appropriate expression of nonverbal behaviors in specific contexts to facilitate the communicating of social intentions.Nonverbal behaviors moderated by culture，in turn，increase social coordination and reduce social chaos，thereby facilitating group efficiency and survival.Cultures formulate norms related to overall expressivity，which is encouraged or discouraged.Expressive cultures tend to encourage more use of nonverbal behaviors.These cultures have developed norms that facilitate the broad outward expression of nonverbal behaviors.Expressive cultures encourage more frequent，animated displays of emotions through facial expressions； more speech illustrating gestures and larger motions； voices with higher intensity and range；more direct gaze during interaction and closer interpersonal distance in interaction； and more relaxed and open postures.These nonverbal norms have evolved over time because they served a purpose in specific ecological and environmental contexts that facilitated group efficiency，social coordination，and the sharing of intentions，all of which ultimately impacted survival.Reserved cultures are likely to facilitate the relatively less frequent use of nonverbal behaviors.These cultures have developed norms that encourage restricting one’s expressive behaviors.There are fewer facial expressions，fewer emotions，more controlled expressions，and fewer animated expressions； fewer speech illustrating gestures，smaller motions； softer voices，diminished range，and lower speech rates； less direct gaze during interactions； farther distances in interaction，less frequent touching； and more rigid，closed postures.These nonverbal behavioral norms also evolved over time because they served a purpose in specific ecological and environmental contexts that facilitated group efficiency，social coordination，and the sharing of intentions，all of which ultimately impacted survival （Matsumoto & Hwang，2016）.16Ibid., 88-89.

The expressive-reserved conceptual framework has relations to the concepts of “high-contact” and “low-contact” cultures （Hall，1966）.17Edward Hall, The Hidden Dimension, 57.Cultures that display considerable interpersonal closeness are labeled “high-contact cultures” because people in these cultures stand closer，touch more，and have more sensory stimulation than do people in lower-contact cultures.18Ibid.

Recent research has shown that South America，North America，the Arab world，and Europe are probably high-contact cultures，whereas Asia is a low-contact culture（McDaniel &Andersen，1998）.19E.R.McDaniel, and Peter A.Andersen, “Intercultural Variations in Tactile Communication,” Journal of Nonverbal Communication 22 (1998): 59-75.The distinction between expressive and reserved cultures also has relations to Hall’s （1966） framework of high- and low-context cultures as illustrated below.20Edward Hall, The Hidden Dimension (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 12.However，according to Matsumoto and Hwang，the expressive-reserved culture distinction is different.It is dynamic and flexible.Under this conceptual framework，cultures not only produce norms for overall expressivity but also facilitate frequency of behaviors differently across channels such as facial expressions，eye behavior，and body behavior.Depending on the channel and behavior being regulated and their function，there are specific norms for specific channels in specific contexts.This dynamic view reflects the static-dynamic dialectic.

High-context and Low-context Framework

At a micro level，human beings live in a succession of multiple，different contexts every day.Context can include a variety of components：time，place，interactants，relationships among interactants，activities/conversations，the reasons why the interactions are occurring，and the possibility of future interactions.These factors are all nonverbal cues which combine to produce the contexts in which people live their lives.Cultures formulate norms by infusing contexts with specific meaning and information concerning （in）appropriate ways of thinking，feeling，and behaving.

The level of context is one of the most important factors of how a culture communicates.In high-context （HC） cultures，people rely on the context heavily for information and meaning interpretation，whereas in low-context （LC） cultures，people interpret communicative behaviors based on the plainly coded messages.In a high-context culture such as that of China，meanings are internalized and nonverbal codes are emphasized，whereas in low-context cultures，people look for the meaning of others’ behaviors in the messages that are explicitly coded.LC messages are highly explicit and highly specified.HC messages depend more on mutual understanding of certain information based on contextual information such as environment，situation，and other kinds of nonverbal cues.The mutual understanding cues will fill in the part of explicit verbal clarification which is missing from HC messages.People from HC cultures are particularly influenced by contextual nonverbal cues when communicating.Therefore，facial expressions，movements，speed of interaction，location of the interaction，and other subtle nonverbal “vibes” are likely to be perceived by and have more meaning for people from HC cultures.21Edward Hall, Beyond Culture (Garden City: Doubleday Press, 1976), 79.

Nonverbal communication cues occur constantly every day.People from HC cultures and people from LC cultures interpret nonverbal cues on different levels.Compared to people from LC cultures，people from HC cultures can understand and recognize nonverbal cues better，especially males.People from HC cultures are also more likely to be affected by nonverbal cues，even when they are generated unintentionally.In addition，people from HC cultures expect other people to understand the nonverbal communication cues they produce.When communicating with people from LC cultures who cannot understand the cues，misunderstandings between communicators can happen during the communication.

Expectancy Violations Theory

A useful theory in understanding nonverbal communication across cultures is expectancy violations theory （Burgoon，1995）.22Judee K.Burgoon, “Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Applications of Expectancy Violations Theory,” Intercultural Communication Theory (International and Intercultural Communication Annual), vol.19, ed.Richard L.Wiseman (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1995), 194-214.This theory suggests that we have subconscious expectations about how our relational others are supposed to behave nonverbally in specific situations.When these expectations are violated—for example，when someone stands too close to us—we will respond in certain ways.If an act is unexpected in negative ways—for example，when someone stands too close to us at a meeting—we tend to perceive the person and the relationship negatively.However，if the act is unexpected in positive ways—for example，an attractive person stands close at a social party—we will probably view the relationship favorably.

Communication expectancies are stable patterns of anticipated verbal and nonverbal behavior（Burgoon & Walther，1990）.Expectancies comprise （a） socially normative patterns of behavior applicable to a speech community or subgroup plus （b） person-specific knowledge related to another’s typical communication patterns.When individuating information is absent or open to interpretation，expectancies tend to be stereotypic（Hamilton，Sherman，& Ruvolo，1990）.Inasmuch as most intercultural interactions entail very limited personalized knowledge about other interactants，expectancies revert to cultural or subcultural norms and stereotypes.The content of each culture’s interactional expectancies will vary considerably along such cultural dimensions as collectivismindividualism，uncertainty avoidance，power distance，masculinity-femininity，ascription versus achievement orientations，time orientation，universalism-particularism，degree of face concern，and high- versus low-context communication （see FitzGerald，2003； Gudykunst，1997； Kim，2002）.23Min-Sun Kim, Non-Western Perspectives on Human Communication (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2002), 15-20.For instance，collectivist cultures such as Japan and China may expect greater verbal indirectness，politeness，and nonimmediacy than individualistic cultures such as the United States，Canada，and Australia （Baker，1989； Kim，1993）.24Min Sun Kim, “Culture-Based Interactive Constraints in Explaining Intercultural Strategic Competence,” Intercultural Communication Competence, eds, Richard L.Wiseman, and Jolene Koestner (Newbury Park: Sage, 1993), 132-50.People from cultures that are more expressive and assertive（e.g.，Australians，Indians，Pakistanis，Iranians，Israelis，Italians，and Spaniards） may expect others to be more talkative and dominant than do those from cultures that are more inexpressive and reticent conversationally （e.g.，Japanese，Koreans，Swedes，Norwegians，and the British； Matsumoto &Ekman，1989）.25David Matsumoto, and Paul Ekman, “American-Japanese Cultural Differences in Intensity Ratings of Facial Expressions of Emotion,” Motivation and Emotion, 13 (1989): 143-57.Noncontact cultures may expect greater interaction distances than contact cultures（Hall，1966，1981），and so forth.But each culture will have its own set of expectancies for a given type of encounter.26Edward Hall, The Hidden Dimension (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 12.

Cultural Influences on Channels of Nonverbal Behavior

In this section，I first discuss the role of culture on common types of nonverbal behaviors，including kinesics，proxemics，haptics，gaze，silence，paralanguage，and chronemics.I then review the more thoroughly researched nonverbal behavior of facial expressions and culture.

Culture and Kinesics

Kinesics，or body language，is one of the most powerful ways that humans can communicate nonverbally.It is used to portray moods and emotions and to emphasize or contradict what is being said.Gesture and posture are among the most common kinesic behaviors.Gestures refer to the movement of hands or arms to reinforce a verbal message.There are gestures of the same meaning across cultures.People nod head for “yes” and shake heads for “no”； people tremble in fear and beam in joy.But cultural differences have been founded in terms of gestures.The American “OK” sign，the circle forms with the thumb and the index can also mean “zero” in China.To motion somebody to “come here，” the Chinese use a palm-downward gesture，while the westerners use a palm-upward one.The study of culture and gestures has its roots in the research by David Efron in 1940s.Efron examined the gestures of two groups of immigrants in New York City，Sicilians and Lithuanian Jews.Efron found that there were distinct gestures among traditional Jews and Italians but that the traditional gestures disappeared as people were more assimilated into the larger American culture.Posture refers to the way people position their body，often revealing feelings and attitudes.Each culture defines postures in its own way.Posture is more conventional and cultural.Putting feet on the desk can be relaxing in American culture but it is forbidden in Asian cultures.Western girls more often walk in big strides to show confidence，while Asian girls tend to walk in shorter strides to show gentility.Kinesic behavior tends to be more synchronized in collectivistic cultures.

Culture and Proxemics

Proxemics is the study of interpersonal distance or spacing in the communication process.Hall （1966） specified four different levels of interpersonal space use depending on social relationship closeness：intimate，personal，social，and public.27Ibid., 109.These distances are culturespecific.For some cultures，these distance ranges may be compressed，while for others they may be expanded.From culture to culture，the language of space has distinctive accents.Violations of personal space are based on individual and cultural factors.People in individualistic cultures are more distant proximally.Collectivistic cultures are interdependent，and as a result they work，play，live，and sleep in close proximity to one another.People in densely populated countries like China and India stay much closer to each other than people in less populated countries.Research also finds that Arab males，for example，tend to sit closer to each other than American males，with more direct，confrontational types of body orientations （Watson & Graves，1966）.28Michael O.Watson, and Theodore D.Graves, “Quantitative Research in Proxemics Behavior,” American Anthropologist 68, no.4 (August, 1966): 977-83.In addition，Latin Americans tend to interact more closely than do people with European backgrounds，and Indonesians tend to sit closer than Australians.Italians interact more closely than either Germans or Americans，and Colombians were found to interact at closer distances than did Costa Ricans （Shuter，1976）.29Robert Shuter, “Proxemics and Tactility in Latin America,” Journal of Communication 26, no.3 (1976): 50-52.

Culture and Haptics

Haptics is the study of physical contacts or touching.This aspect of nonverbal communication is culturally determined.Different cultures can be classified as “contact” cultures—which refers to those cultures that facilitate physical touch or contact during interaction—or “noncontact” cultures.Each culture has a clear concept of where to touch，where not to touch，and what meanings to assign when touched by someone else.To greet，Asian people seldom hug and kiss.Instead，Chinese shake hands； Japanese bow.

Culture and Gaze

Research has demonstrated that gaze is associated with dominance，power，or aggression as well as affiliation and nurturance.Research suggests that the affiliative aspects of gazing begin in infancy，as infants attend to adults as their source of care and protection.Cultures have rules about gazing and visual attention，however，because both aggression and affiliation are behavioral tendencies that are significant for group stability and maintenance.Cross-cultural research has documented variations in these rules.Arabs，for example，have been found to gaze longer and more directly at their conversational partners than do Americans.It found that contact cultures engaged in more gazing and had more direct orientations when interacting with others，less interpersonal distance，and more touching.Within the United States，there are also variations in gaze and visual behavior among different ethnic groups.

Culture and Paralanguage

Paralanguage is the nonverbal vocal aspects of speech.It deals with how the words are said.Its components，including pitch，volume，rate，pauses，rhythm，articulation，and pronunciation，all add meanings to the words.These vocal aspects are biologically individual，but some are more culturally defined.Long pauses or silence after a speech may make Westerners feel uncomfortable and embarrassed，but Asian audiences tend to raise few questions and feel comfortable with the silence.On the other hand，Chinese talk much over meals to bond with each other.Westerners may find it difficult to talk with food in the mouth.

Culture and Silence

Silence can be as meaningful as language.Cultural communities may vary in the degree of emphasis placed on silence （Acheson，2007）.30Kris Acheson, “Silence in Dispute,” in Communication Yearbook 31, ed.Christina, S.Beck (New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007), 2-59.In most US American contexts，silence is not highly valued.Particularly in developing relationships，silence communicates awkwardness and can make people feel uncomfortable.Silence is therefore associated with uncertainty in US American contexts.People employ active uncertainty reduction strategies，such as asking questions or direct interactions.In a review of scholarly research on silence，Acheson acknowledges that silence in the United States has often been associated with negative，unhealthy relationships，or with disempowerment—for example，when women and/or minorities feel their voices are not heard.In many communities，silence is also associated with social situations in which a known and unequal distribution of power exists among participants （Braithwaite，1990）.31Charles A.Braithwaite, “Communicative Silence: A Cross-Cultural Study of Basso’s Hypothesis,” in Cultural Communication and Intercultural Contact, ed.Donal Carbaugh (Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990), 321-27.Silence can communicate different meanings in different cultures.Silence，for Finns，reflects thoughtfulness，appropriate consideration，and intelligence，particularly in public discourse or in educational settings like a classroom.Scholars have reported similar views on speaking and silence in Chinese and Japanese cultures，showing the influence of Confucianism and Taoism.“Silence is golden” is a saying in Chinese culture.Acheson indicates that US Americans increasingly recognize the positive and sometimes powerful uses of silence in certain contexts.For example，nurses and doctors are encouraged to honor silent patients and learn to employ silence in their care.In education，teachers can create a space for understanding rather than counterarguments by asking for silent reflection.

Culture and Chronemics

Chronemics is about concepts of time and the rules that govern its use.Cultural variations regarding how people understand and use time have been documented.Hall （1966） distinguished between monochromic and polychromic time orientation.32Edward Hall, The Hidden Dimension, 162-63.People who have a monochromic concept of time view time as a commodity：time can be gained，lost，spent，wasted，or saved.Time is linear，with one event happening at a time.Monochromic cultures value being punctual，completing tasks，and keeping to schedules.Most businesses in the United States maintain a monochromic orientation to time.Meetings and office appointments start when scheduled；Professional personnel see one person at a time，hold one meeting at a time，and keep appointments except in the case of emergency.Family problems are considered poor reasons for not fulfilling working obligations.In contrast，in a polychromic orientation，time is more holistic and circular—different events can happen at the same time.Some international business negotiations falter and even fail because of differences in time orientation.For example，US businesspeople often complain that meetings in the Middle East do not start “on time，” that people socialize during meetings，and that meetings may be canceled because of personal obligations.Tasks often are accomplished because of personal relationships.On the other hand，international business personnel observe that US Americans seem tied to their schedules； they suggest that US Americans do not care enough about relationships and often sacrifice time with friends and family to complete tasks and keep appointments.

The above review provides ample support for the contention that culture plays a large role in shaping our nonverbal behaviors.The majority of research literature in the area of culture and nonverbal behavior，however，concerns facial expressions of emotion.In the next section，I review the relevant research in this area of study，illustrating the universal and cultural-specific aspects of facial expressions of emotion.

Culture and Facial Expressions

The Universality of Facial Expressions

Nonverbal body language is thought to have evolved over time to answer human social needs，so it is regarded to be innate，universal，and pan-cultural.Human beings must have communicated through nonverbal means for many years before verbal languages came into existence.We learn nonverbal communication earlier than language.For example，before mastering a language to convey meaning，babies are capable of delivering messages through nonverbal acts.Their intentions are very often made clear to their mothers and family members without verbal channels.

According to Darwin （1872），humans，regardless of race or culture，have the ability to express emotions in the same ways，primarily through their faces.33Charles Darwin, The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals, 3rd ed (New York: Oxford University, 1872).The fact that people across cultures share common emotions through facial expressions is another manifestation of the universality of nonverbal communication.The fear of fierce animals，the friendly smiles，and the painful tears are almost universal across cultures.Indeed，many cross-cultural studies support the notion of some universality in nonverbal communication，particularly in facial expressions.In the mid-1960s，a group of scholars conducted what have become known as “universality studies.”34Paul Ekman, Darwin and Facial Expression; A Century of Research in Review (New York: Academic Press, 1973); Paul Ekman and Wallace V.Friesen, “Constants across Culture in the Face and Emotion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 17, no.2 (1971): 124-29.These researchers obtained judgments of faces thought to express emotions across cultures and demonstrated that cultures agreed on the emotions portrayed in the expressions，providing the earliest evidence for the universality of facial expressions.Collectively，the research findings showed the existence of six universal expressions of happiness，sadness，disgust，fear，anger，and surprise.They are communicated by similar facial expressions across many cultures.Expressions for these emotions are recognized by most cultural groups as having the similar meaning for the same amount of intensity（Ekman，2003； Matsumoto，2006）.35David Matsumoto, “Culture and Nonverbal Behavior,” in The Sage Handbook of Nonverbal Communication, eds.Valerie Manusov and Miles L.Patterson (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2006)：222.Likewise，the emotions portrayed in the universal facial expressions correspond to emotion taxonomies in different languages.There is also cultural similarity in the physiological responses to emotion when these facial expressions are used as markers，in both the autonomic nervous system and brain activity.This similarity exists in people of such widely divergent cultures as the United States and the Minangkabau of West Sumatra，Indonesia.Further，there is universality in the antecedents that bring about emotion.

Recent research on the universality of nonverbal behavior has also focused on how some nonverbal behavior fills universal human social needs for promoting social affiliation or bonding.For example，according to research，laughter is not just a message about the positive feeling of the sender but an attempt to influence others，to make them feel more positive toward the sender.Similarly，the social purpose of mimicry—when interaction partners adopt similar postures，gestures，and mannerisms—is to create an affective or social bond with others.Researchers point out that people in all cultures use these nonverbal behaviors to influence others，and over time，the behaviors that contribute to positive relationships are favored and eventually become automatic and nonconscious （Patterson，2003）.36Miles L.Patterson, “Commentary: Evolution and Nonverbal Behavior: Functions and Mediating Processes,” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 27, (2003): 203.Relational messages—information on how the speaker wants to be understood and viewed by the listener are communicated not by words，but through nonverbal behavior.

Cultural Differences in Expressing Emotion

As with verbal communication，culture influences nonverbal behaviors in profound ways.Facial expressions might be the most widely studied body language because facial expressions communicate people’s emotions，opinions，and moods better than any other body part.It is said that people can make thousands of different facial expressions by moving muscles in the face.Many of those have meaning attached to them.Darwin （1872） claimed the universality of facial expressions across race and culture.37Charles Darwin, The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals, 3rd ed (New York: Oxford University, 1872).Further studies show that there are some universal facial expressions like anger，happiness，fear，sadness，and surprise.On the other hand，specialists claim that it is very hard to accurately determine people’s emotions and attitudes according to facial expressions due to cultural conventions or personal habits.Japanese people may smile even when they are unhappy about you because its culture deems it polite to do so.Chinese culture endows smiles with very complicated meanings from happiness，embarrassment，confusion to discomfort.Smiles and laughter are used to hide sorrow and anger sometimes.People may look calm when they are shocked because they have learned to be skillful at concealing emotions on the faces.Collectivistic cultures such as East Asian cultures are less likely to show their real emotions in public compared to individualistic cultures.However，all types of cultures will show some degree of emotion in certain situations.

Cultural Emotional Display Rules

Ekman and Friesen （1969） created the term “cultural display rules” to account for cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion.38Paul Ekman, and Wallace Friesen, “The Repertoire of Nonverbal Behavior: Categories, Origins, Usage, and Coding,”Semiotica 1 (1969): 75.These are rules learned early in childhood that help individuals manage and modify their emotional expressions depending on social circumstances.According to Ekman and Friesen，there are six ways in which expressions may be managed when emotion is aroused：（1） Individuals can express emotions as they feel them with no modification；（2） Individuals can exaggerate their emotions—for example，feelings of sadness may be intensified at funerals； （3） Individuals can minimize their expressions—for instance，feelings of sadness may be minimized at weddings； （4） People can conceal their emotions by expressing something other than what they feel—for instance，when nurses or physicians hide their emotions when speaking to patients with terminal illness； （5） Individuals may also learn to neutralize their expressions，expressing nothing，such as when playing poker； （6） Individuals can qualify their feelings by expressing emotions in combination，such as when feelings of sadness are mixed with a smile，with the smile commenting on the sadness，saying “I’ll be OK”.All these behavioral responses have been found to occur when spontaneous expressive behaviors have been studied.Expressive styles involving greater modification of the initial reaction demand more time for display than expressive styles involving relatively less modification，likely because the former take on greater neurocognitive resources.Expressive modes that allow for the continued expression of the initial emotion or only slight modifications of its intensity need less of such modification，and thus result in shorter elapsed times from initial response.The fact that expressions change across time and are more culturally variable subsequent to an initial，immediate，universal emotional reaction explains why beliefs about the pervasiveness of cultural differences in expression exist.Below are some empirical study results showing how culture influences emotion display.

Matsumoto and his colleagues created the Display Rule Assessment Inventory （DRAI），in which participants chose a behavioral response when they experienced different emotions in different social situations.The emotions were those that were universally recognized：anger，contempt，disgust，fear，happiness，sadness，and surprise.Participants were asked to consider what they would do if they felt each emotion in four social situations：with family members，close friends，colleagues，and strangers.Participants from the United States，Japan，South Korea，and Russia completed the DRAI along with an individual-level measure of individualism-collectivism.Results showed that Russians exerted the highest control over their expressions，followed by South Koreans and Japanese； Americans had the lowest control over their expressions.Significant sex differences were also found，with females exerting more control over anger，contempt，disgust，and across all emotions when with family members，and males having more control over fear and surprise.Their second study involving the DRAI showed that expression regulation occurs in the various ways discussed，and not on a simple expression-suppression dimension.Furthermore，there were consistent and predictable cultural differences among American，Russian，and Japanese participants.For example，Americans and Russians both expressed anger and contempt more than Japanese.Americans expressed fear and disgust more than Russians，and Americans expressed happiness more than both Russians and Japanese.The Japanese participants minimized emotions more than both the Americans and the Russians.Americans amplified sadness and disgust more than Russians，whereas Japanese amplified surprise and fear more than Russians，but the Russians qualified their happiness more than both Japanese and Americans.

In a number of studies，the cultural value dimension of individualism-collectivism is often used to understand and explain cultural variations in emotional display.Individualistic cultures emphasize personal rights and responsibilities，privacy，voicing one’s own opinion，freedom，creation，and self-expression.Collectivistic cultures emphasize community，collaboration，common goals，harmony，tradition，and maintaining face.Cultures high in individualism view the self as independent and rely on interpersonal exchange and interaction with strangers for success，while cultures high in collectivism view the self as interdependent and rely on group solidarity and conformity to norms for success.Differences between cultures’ priorities and values are reflected in their emotion display rules.

In one of the largest cross-cultural studies on display rules，involving 5，361 participants from 32 countries，Matsumoto and his colleagues （2008） found that individualism was positively associated with higher self-reported expressivity norms for emotions in general，and for positive emotions in particular.39David Matsumoto, Seung H.Yoo, and Johnny Fontaine, “Mapping Expressive Differences around the World: The Relationship between Emotional Display Rules and Individualism versus Collectivism,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 39 (2008): 66.In a recent study involving 740，984 participants from 12 countries around the world，McDuff and his colleagues （2017） presented the first large-scale evidence regarding cultural differences in observed facial behavior.40Daniel McDuff, Jeffery M.Girard, and Rana Kaliouby, “Large-Scale Observational Evidence of Cross-Cultural Differences in Facial Behavior,” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 41 (2017): 12.The researchers used an Internet-based framework to collect video data of participants in two different settings：in their homes and in market research facilities.Results revealed that participants from more individualist cultures displayed more brow furrowing，whereas smiling depended on both culture and setting.Specifically，participants from more individualist countries were more expressive in the facility setting，while participants from more collectivist countries were more expressive in the home setting.These effects were interpreted as evidence that emotions and their free expression have greater importance in cultures that are more individualistic.Collectivistic cultures were associated with a display rule norm of less expressivity overall than individualistic cultures，suggesting that overall expressive regulation for all emotions is central to the preservation of social order in these cultures.Individualism was also positively associated with higher expressivity norms in general，and for positive emotions in particular.

In addition to this overall effect of culture，an interaction between culture and social context was also identified.Specifically，cultures’ display rules were found to differ for interactions with in-group members and out-group members.Interactions with in-group members are characterized by a sense of intimacy，familiarity，and trust that is often based on a history of shared experiences and an anticipated future，while interactions with out-group members lack these qualities.Matsumoto and his colleagues found that，across cultures，participants had higher expressivity norms for interactions with in-group members as compared to out-group members.Additional findings suggest that individualist display rules favor the expression of positive emotion and censor the expression of negative emotion toward out-group members，while collectivist display rules do the same for in-group members.This pattern is consistent with the idea that display rules serve to foster the building of trust and cohesion in the social contexts that a culture most relies on for success.Cumulatively，research findings suggest a nuanced view of the relationship between culture and expression endorsement that varies as a function of emotion，conversational partners，and overall expressivity endorsement levels.

Research work has also identified effects of gender on expressivity norms，as well as gender-byculture and gender-by-context interactions （Brody & Hall，2008）.41Leslie R.Brody, and Judith A.Hall, “Gender and Emotion in Context,” in Handbook of Emotions, 3rd ed, eds.Michael J.Lewis, Jeannette M.Haviland-Jones, and Lisa F.Barrett (New York: The Guilford Press, 2008), 405.Fischer and Manstead （2000）found that，across 37 countries，women reported more intense and longer-lasting emotions and more overtly expressed emotions than men； these differences were also more noticeable in individualistic cultures.Fischer and Manstead theorized that in order to protect their status，men in these cultures need to suppress their expressivity.42Agneta H.Fischer, and Antony S.R.Manstead, “The Relation between Gender and Emotions in Different Cultures,” in Gender and Emotion: Social Psychological Perspectives, ed.Agneta H.Fischer (New York: Cambridge University Press,2000), 88.McDuff and his colleagues（2017） also found that female participants displayed more smiling and less brow furrowing than male participants，with the latter difference being more pronounced in more individualist countries.43Daniel McDuff, Jeffery M.Girard, and Rana Kaliouby, “Large-Scale Observational Evidence of Cross-Cultural Differences in Facial Behavior,” 11.In another study，Scherer and colleagues （1986） found that，in Israel and seven European countries，females reported displaying more facial reactions than males when expressing joy，sadness，fear，and anger.44Klaus R.Scherer, Harald F.Wallbott, and Angela B.Summerfield, Experiencing Emotion: A Cross-Cultural Study (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 173.In a meta-analysis of 162 research reports，LaFrance and colleagues （2003） found that women and adolescent girls smiled more than men and adolescent boys.45Marianne LaFrance, Marvin A.Hecht, and Elizabeth L.Paluck,“The Contingent Smile: A Meta-analysis of Sex Differences in Smiling,” Psychological Bulletin 129, no.2 (2003): 313.This effect held across all 13 included countries of origin，although the gender difference was more pronounced in some cultures than others.For instance，participants from the United States and Canada showed larger sex differences in smiling than participants from the United Kingdom.It was also found that social context moderated the gender effect.Sex differences were significantly larger when participants were in facility settings and aware that their behavior was being observed than when they believed that their behavior was not being observed.

Culture and Emotion Judgement

Besides cultural differences in emotional display，there are cultural variations in emotion interpretation as well，and these differences are presumably due to differential cultural norms that regulate how the emotional expressions of others should be understood （Matsumoto & Hwang，2016）.46David Matsumoto, and Hyisung C.Hwang, “The Cultural Bases of Nonverbal Communication,” 88.One important aspect of communication that is culturally moderated is the extent to which cultures moderate the contributions of context when interpreting others’ emotions.Matsumoto，Hwang，and Yamada （2012） conducted two studies about observers from the United States，Japan，and South Korea who judged facial expressions of anger，sadness，and happiness.47David Matsumoto, Hyisung S.Hwang, and Hiroshi Yamada, “Cultural Differences in the Relative Contributions of Face and Context to Judgments of Emotion,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 43 (2012): 203.The three emotions were presented together with a congruent or incongruent emotion-eliciting context.They found that when faces and contexts were incongruent regarding a specific emotion display，there were both face and context effects，and the contributions of each were moderated by culture.American interpretations were more influenced by faces，whereas Japanese and South Korean interpretations were more influenced by context.The results provide a more nuanced view of how culture and type of emotion moderate judgements of faces in context by showing how face and context effects occur simultaneously，and how culture influences these effects.

Besides the channels of nonverbal communicative behavior discussed above，another form of communication beyond speech is the cultural space that we occupy and negotiate.In the following section，I discuss identity and cultural space.

Cultural Space

The concept of cultural space helps understand nonverbal behaviors.Cultural space is “the specific configuration of the communication that constructs meanings of various places” （Martin& Nakayama，2018）.48Judith N.Martin, and Thomas K.Nakayama, “Nonverbal Codes and Cultural Space,” in Intercultural Communication in Contexts, eds.Judith N.Martin and Thomas K.Nakayama, 7th ed.(New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2018), 275.Cultural spaces provide the social and cultural contexts in which an individual’s identity is formed—where this person grows up and where he/she lives，the physical homes and neighborhoods，as well as the cultural meanings created in these places.All of these are cultural spaces.A cultural space is not only a particular location that has culturally constructed meanings.It can also be a metaphorical place from which we communicate.We can speak from a number of social locations，marked on the “map of society，”49Ibid.that give added meaning to our communication.Thus，we may speak as parents，children，colleagues，siblings，customers，and a myriad of other “places.”50Ibid.

Therefore，cultural spaces affect nonverbal behaviors.Rules for nonverbal communication vary among cultures and contexts.Our individual histories are important in understanding our identities.Our identities are constructed，in part，in relation to the cultural milieu of the places where we grow up and live.Each region has its own histories and ways of life that help us understand who we are.When a person tells you where he or she comes from，he or she means to communicate something about who they think they are.Hence，although we can identify precisely the borders that mark out these spaces and make them material，the spaces are also cultural in the ways that we imagine them to be.

The discourses that construct the meanings of cultural spaces are dynamic and ever changing.For example，the Beijing that I left behind twenty-two years ago is not characterized by the same discourses that construct the capital city of China now.In addition，the relationship between the cultural spaces and our identities is negotiated in complex ways.For example，in 1999，Hairong immigrated to the US after living in Beijing for many years and completing most of her education there.During the past twenty-two years spent in the US，she has lived in different places：Chicago，Illinois； West Lafayette，Indiana； and Duluth，Minnesota.In recent years，she has often traveled back to China in the summer and has experienced the reverse cultural shock and adaptation in many ways.The overlapping cultural spaces has profoundly influenced how she thinks about who she is.Thus，an individual’s identity and communication practices are changing due to the shift of cultural spaces.

Cultural Identity and Cultural Space

Home, Neighborhood, and Regions

Cultural spaces influence how we think about ourselves and others.One of the earliest cultural spaces we experience is our home.Home is variously defined in terms of specific addresses，cities，states，regions，and even nations.However，home is not simply the physical location or the building.Home sometimes reflects the social class to which we aspire，may be a place of identification，and can be a place of safety and security.We often model our own lives on the patterns from our childhood homes.Although we might have historical ties to a particular place，not everyone has the same relationship between those places and their own identities.Indeed，the relationship between place and cultural identity varies.The complex relationships we have between various places and our identities resist simplistic reduction.People have negotiated different sentiments toward “home” which demonstrates the complex dialectical tensions that exist between identity and location.Similar to home，most people live in neighborhood communities；some neighborhoods are based on racial and ethnic groups.Some subcultures are accepted and promoted within a particular cultural space，others are tolerated，and still others may be unacceptable.Power relations influence who （or what） gets to claim whom （or what） under what conditions.There are complex power，identity，and cultural space relationships.Identifying with various cultural spaces is a negotiated process that is difficult to predict and control.The key to understanding the relationships among culture，power，people，and cultural spaces is to think dialectically.Beyond home and neighborhood，people also identify with regions where they live.Regionalism refers to loyalty to a particular region that holds significant cultural meaning for a person.Although regions are not always clearly marked on maps of the world，many people identify quite strongly with particular regions.Regionalism can be expressed in symbolic expressions of identification to armed conflict.Around the world，ongoing regional and religious conflicts，as well as nationalism and ethnic revival，point to the continuing struggles over who defines whom.Some cultural spaces such as Jerusalem have been sites of struggle for many centuries.

Changing Cultural Space

We experience change of cultural space when we travel.Changing cultural spaces means changing identity and how we interact with others.Traveling changes cultural spaces in ways that often transform the traveler and change our emotions and communication styles.Perhaps the old saying “When in Rome，do as the Romans do” holds true today as we cross cultural spaces more frequently than ever.People also change cultural spaces when they relocate.Moving involves a different kind of change in cultural space than traveling.In traveling，the change is fleeting，temporary，and usually desirable； it is something that travelers look forward to.However，people who migrate do not always look forward to this change.For instance，in recent years，a number of people have been forced from their strife-torn homelands in Rwanda and in Bosnia and have settled in a variety of places.Immigrants leave their homelands so they can survive.But they often find it difficult to adjust to the change，especially if the language and customs of the new cultural space are not familiar.

Postmodern Cultural Spaces

Postmodern cultural spaces are places that are defined by cultural practices such as languages spoken，identities enacted，and rituals performed； these spaces often change as people move in and out of them.Space has become increasingly important in the negotiation of cultural and social identities.Scholars have noted that identity and knowledge are profoundly spatial and temporal，and that this condition structures meaningful embodiment and experience.Postmodern cultural spaces are both tenuous and dynamic.They are created within existing places，without following any particular guide.There is no marking off of territory，no sense of permanence，and no official recognition.The postmodern cultural space exists only while it is used.Physical place，in this sense，can become a cultural space in that it is infused with cultural meanings.

With the rapid development of technology，interactive social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter in the United States andwechatin China have quickly established a set of postmodern spaces.These virtual communities can cross physical boundaries and connect people from different places.A virtual community unites people with similar interests and goals.Members identify themselves with their virtual communities and have a sense of belonging to these communities.The construction of members’ identities can be profoundly influenced by the uses of social media.The fluid and fleeting nature of postmodern cultural space stands in contrast to the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century notions of space，which promoted land ownership，borders，colonies，and territories.The dynamic nature of postmodern cultural spaces underscores its response to changing cultural needs.The ideology of fixed spaces and categories is being challenged by postmodernist notions of space and location.

Conclusion

Nonverbal communication about relationships，involving features such as affect，status，and deception，mostly takes place at an unconscious level.It communicates how we feel about our relational partners.Therefore，nonverbal communication plays an important role in interactions.However，in intercultural encounters，two factors often make it difficult to interpret nonverbal messages.First，nonverbal behaviors are the “silent language” （Henley，1977），51Nancy M.Henley, Body Politics: Power, Sex, and Nonverbal Communication (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Press,1977), 6.and in interactions people are likely to focus on the verbal messages and not the nonverbal messages.Second，in intercultural encounters，communication is much more likely to feature greater ambiguity and uncertainty，not only because of cultural variations in verbal messages but also due to cultural differences in nonverbal messages accompanying the verbal messages.Misunderstandings and misattributions about intent，relationship，or individual character disrupt social coordination and increase chances for conflict.For example，people from low-context cultures tend to judge those from high-context cultures as being untrustworthy and inscrutable.On the other hand，people from high-context cultures tend to see those from low-context cultures as arrogant and immature.These interpretations and attributions are likely to be misguided because people tend to use their own cultural values，beliefs，and norms to interpret the nonverbal messages of others from a different culture.

One of the important goals of research in intercultural communication is to help people manage the uncertainty and ambiguity inherent in intercultural encounters.Reviewing and reflecting upon the relationship between culture and nonverbal communication helps us realize that there are both cultural similarities and differences in nonverbal communication.Engaging with cultural differences in nonverbal communication can lead to uncertainty and ambiguity which are a normal and inevitable part of the intercultural communication process.With these expectations，we can perceive intercultural communication from a positive perspective：intercultural interactions are not an obstacle but rather a platform for the exchange of ideas and the sharing of goals in creative ways （Matsumoto & Hwang，2016）.52David Matsumoto, and Hyisung C.Hwang, “The Cultural Bases of Nonverbal Communication,” 95.In today’s multicultural，pluralistic world，a greater cultural sensitivity in both verbal and nonverbal communication is essential.