Cultural differences in nonverbal behavior during a job interview

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

FOR HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

Department of Foreign languages

MASTER'S THESIS

Cultural Differences in Nonverbal Behavior during a Job Interview

Victoria Dorofeeva

Supervisor Associate Professor

Kolesnikova E.A.

Content

cultural nonverbal behavior interview

Introduction

Theoretical Part

Pivotal notions

Overview of studies on cultural differences in nonverbal behavior

Nonverbal behavior in the context of a job interview

Conclusions

Practical Part

Research methodolog

Case study 1

Case study 2

Case study 3

Case study 4

Results anticipated and/or achieved

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Globalization is a modern phenomenon which impact on various spheres of people's lives should not be underestimated. It is a process that has to some extent blurred economic boundaries between countries and, as a consequence, united representatives of different cultures in one multicultural workplace. Not surprisingly, people suddenly exposed to such society may face misunderstandings and conflicts being unaware of cultural differences and ways in which they have a potential to manifest themselves. One of the possible examples is a job interview which in the context of globalization serves as a gate to migration and plays a crucial role in establishing global labor market. There are multiple factors contributing to success of a candidate during a job interview, however only nonverbal behavior of the interviewees in multicultural context will be examined in this paper. This research focuses on culture-specific aspects of nonverbal communication at a job interview and attempts to investigate particular elements of nonverbal communication that are crucial for creating a favorable impression and enhancing chances of an interviewee. Relevance of this research lies in the fact that it will provide an additional insight into the relation between intercultural aspects and nonverbal behavior. The purpose of this study is to understand whether cross-cultural differences in non-verbal communication may affect success of the candidate at a job interview. The aim of the research is to present theoretical evidence as well as practical and make a contribution into communication studies. The theoretical part of this research is based on the method of an overall extraction and analysis of information from scientific literature and reliable Internet resources. The type of this research is empirical which implies that theoretical framework and the practical part are given in succession.

Research questions:

1) How is the issue of cultural differences in nonverbal communication reflected in scientific literature?

2) How cultural differences in nonverbal communication affect candidates' success at a job interview?

Hypotheses:

1) Cultural differences in nonverbal communication affect candidates' success at a job interview;

2) There are elements of nonverbal communication that are not explicitly affected by cultural differences and therefore can be mastered in order to cause a favorable impression in various job interview settings.

Prediction: the three elements of nonverbal behavior that are not explicitly affected by cultural diversity in the context of a job interview are proxemics, kinesics and oculesics.

Object of the research: non-verbal communication.

Subject of the research: cultural aspects of non-verbal communication.

Relevance of the research: this research will provide a deep insight into the relation between cross-cultural aspect and non-verbal behavior.

The theoretical and practical significance: this research may be used by researchers to expand discussion on the topic of cross-cultural differences in non-verbal communication in the context of a job interview.

Methodology: the theoretical part of this research is based on a method of an overall extraction of information out of special literature and reliable Internet resources. The practical part of this research is based on case analysis. The case analysis encompasses several case studies which are devoted to particular job interview scenes from the films depicting representatives of different cultures. For the purpose of this paper job interview scenes from American and British films will be chosen. The goal is to analyze nonverbal behavior of the heroes of the films during a job interview.

Structure of the research: this paper encompasses theoretical part, in which an overview of existing scientific works on the aforementioned topic is presented, and a practical part, in which the analysis of nonverbal behavior across cultures from the scenes of the films depicting a job interview in the context of a particular culture will be provided.

Theoretical part

Pivotal notions

In order to avoid misinterpretations and incompatibilities within the text of the paper every research needs a clarification of the most important notions and a reference to particular scholars that put them forward. The later appears to be vital for the consistency of the scientific work since different scholars define social phenomena in different ways. Therefore, it seems necessary to introduce the most significant terms for this paper and underscore the scientists that coined them.

The most crucial notion employed in this research is nonverbal behavior. There is a heated debate among the researchers about how this phenomenon should be interpreted and what kind of elements are to be included in this notion. In general, nonverbal behavior can be concisely defined as “human communication acts distinct from speech” (Thirumalai, 1987). This definition will be referred to for the purpose of this research. Additionally, it should be also mentioned that the notions “nonverbal behavior” and “nonverbal communication” can be used interchangeably. However, there can be a slight difference in meaning when we take into account social context in which a particular nonverbal act is happening. In case with “nonverbal communication” we imply that an individual is involved into social interaction, therefore nonverbal acts acquire communicative meaning and are expected to convey messages. Whereas “nonverbal behavior” appears to be a more general term and might as well refer to nonverbal acts of the individuals not involved into any kind of social interaction. The term preferred in this paper is “nonverbal behavior”, however it is specified that the focus of this research is on nonverbal behavior during a job interview.

However, nonverbal behavior as a whole will not be studied in this paper. Instead, attention will be paid specifically to cultural aspects of nonverbal behavior. Considering this peculiarity of the research, it is important to introduce and clarify the meaning of the notion culture. The most popular and widely acknowledged definition of culture was suggested by Dutch anthropologist Geert Hofstede. In accordance with his theory “culture is the collective programming of the human mind that distinguishes the members of one human group from those of another. Culture in this sense is a system of collectively held values” (Crawley, E., Swailes, S. and Walsh, D., 2013, p. 51). Additionally, it is vital to keep in mind that this paper examines cultural differences of nonverbal behavior in the context of a job interview. Provided that a job interview is an example of social interaction it is important to pay attention to the intersection of culture and communication. Thus, the concept of intercultural communication has to be discussed. According to William Gudykunst (2003), who has significantly contributed to intercultural communication studies, intercultural communication can be understood as a “face-to-face communication between people from different national cultures” (p. vii). In essence, intercultural communication deals with the way cultural differences play out in communicative processes within a group and communicative dynamics that pertain to multicultural environment. However, this term is frequently confused with the term “cross-cultural communication”. Gudykunst (2003) claimed that “understanding cross-cultural communication is a prerequisite to understanding intercultural communication” (p. vii). Hence, it seems important to present the term cross-cultural communication as well: “comparison of face-to-face communication across cultures, understanding of communication within one culture from the insider's point of view” (p. vii). The focus in the definition of this notion is given to static cultural differences observed when specific features of different cultures are compared.

Finally, a term explaining the context within which intercultural aspects of nonverbal behavior will be investigated in this paper is job interview. According to Frauendorfer and Mast (2015) a job interview “is a dyadic social interaction in which the applicant and the recruiter normally meet for the first time” (p. 2). The authors conducted a thorough analysis of the role of nonverbal behavior specifically during a job interview, that is why this definition is relevant for this paper. It should be noticed that even though Frauendorfer and Mast (2015) do not distinguish between various types and forms of a job interview, their definition implies a face-to-face meeting. This detail is vital for this research because only during a face-to-face meeting is it possible to trace and fully observe different dynamics of nonverbal behavior of the individuals.

Overview of studies on cultural differences in nonverbal behavior

The purpose of this section is to study existing theoretical evidence on the topic of cultural differences in nonverbal behavior. Our goal is to understand how cultural aspects of nonverbal behavior are approached and evaluated by various scholars. Firstly, important scientific works in the sphere of nonverbal behavior and communication in general will be presented. Secondly, scientific papers bringing up the issue of cultural aspects of nonverbal behavior will be examined.

It is no exaggeration to say that the goal of every individual involved in the act of communication is to achieve understanding. Even though there is a heated debate among scholars about the cases in which communication should be considered successful, it is a common fact that there are multiple factors that influence success of communication in a multicultural context, nonverbal aspect of communication being one of them. According to Em Griffin (2012), “meaning is embedded in the setting and the nonverbal code” (p. 393). Griffin's (2012) statement implies that in order to comprehend the full meaning of the individual's message attention should be paid to the social setting in which communication is taking place as well as to nonverbal behavior of an individual. Notwithstanding, the author does not clarify to what extent each aspect of communication discussed by him is important, which makes it difficult to notice an outstanding importance of nonverbal behavior. Luckily, one of the pioneers in research on body language Albert Mehrabian (1971) has undertaken an attempt to define and count the impact of various components of a message on the success of communication. The findings of his research suggest that words (verbal component) contribute to only 7 per cent of the message, vocal component inclusively intonation, pitch and loudness of the voice account for 38 per cent and nonverbal component constitutes 55 per cent. Similarly, Birdwhistell's (1952) research revealed that an average person is actually verbally active for a total of approximately ten or eleven minutes per day and that this component accounts for less than 35 per cent of a face-to-face conversation while over 65 per cent of communication is attributed to nonverbal component. Therefore, nonverbal code appears to be a significant source of information used to decode the meaning of a message.

The aforementioned fact makes nonverbal communication especially significant in situations such as a job interview, in which a favorable first impression is of paramount importance since it has a potential to impact the candidate's employment chances. For example, a study undertaken by Dipboye (1994) demonstrates that recruiters are inclined to trust their first impressions of the candidates more than objective tests. Apart from that, a modern workplace is becoming more diverse, that is why it is crucial to understand whether these first impressions of one's nonverbal behavior may be influenced by cultural differences. Therefore, it appears essential to find out whether the success of nonverbal communication between the participants in a social setting such as a recruitment interview may be jeopardized by differing perceptions of particular nonverbal communication acts due to their varying cultural backgrounds and whether, as a consequence, it can lower candidate's chances of employment.

Consequently, since nonverbal behavior should by no means be neglected by job applicants in the interview setting, the necessity to study what nonverbal behavior really is and how it can be manifested seems logical. As discussed in the previous section, Thirumalai (1987) argues that since nonverbal behavior is claimed to be manifested in everything but speech, “it also includes silence as well as dropping of elements form speech and/or the missing elements in speech utterances”. This peculiarity seems especially vital to consider when the analysis involves nonverbal behavior of the representatives of Oriental high-context cultures (Hall, 1976), who pay a lot of attention to silence as an important communicative act.

Generally, having analyzed numerous scientific works by different authors, it seems obvious to notice that that the boundary between verbal and nonverbal is often far from transparent. However, modern science in the field of nonverbal behavior outlines six aspects, into which nonverbal behavior can be divided for the purpose of meticulous analysis. These six aspects include kinesics, proxemics, paralanguage, haptics, chronemics and oculesics.

Notwithstanding, irrespective of the type of approach to nonverbal behavior and a situational context verbal and nonverbal communication are always related. Thirumalai (1987) underscores that non-relevance across the verbal and nonverbal channels can sometimes take place and is considered normal, however, non-relevance within a single medium is considered abnormal. The latter case may serve as a sign of insincerity of an individual or defection in their communicative capacities. However, it turns out that inconsistency between verbal and nonverbal channels, especially if witnessed frequently, possesses a direct effect on the interlocutor's perception of a person and, consequently, on the success of communication. Mahrabian (1971) underscores, that when the content of verbal messages contradicts nonverbal messages or, as he calls them, silent messages, people tend to mistrust the verbal message of the speaker. Consequently, the consistency of verbal and nonverbal messages is crucial in establishing contact with interlocutors during face-to-face communication. It is also important to add that on the other hand words and gestures tend to occur together with certain level of predictability, which implies some sort of consistency of verbal and nonverbal messages. For example, Birdwhistell (1952) suggested that one is supposed to be able to predict specific nonverbal signals a person is displaying merely by the auditory analysis of their voice. Therefore, the aforementioned fact sheds some light on the question why individuals may be so sensitive to the inconsistencies between verbal and nonverbal messages.

It should be pointed out that in order to analyze nonverbal behavior of an individual realistically and spot possible incongruencies, it is important to be perceptive (Pease & Pease, 2004). Ones of the most prominent modern researchers in the sphere of social psychology Alan and Barbara Pease meticulously studied peoples' body language and identified this skill as an “ability to read another person's body language and to compare these cues with verbal signals” (p.13). They notice that in daily life this ability is referred to as intuition or as audience awareness if to speak in terms of public speaking. The authors also refer to one of the researches conducted by psychologists at Harvard University and note that “women are far more alert to body language than men” (p. 13). This fact may be significant to keep in mind when nonverbal behavior is observed in the context of a job interview since the majority of human resources managers nowadays are represented by women.

Ultimately, Alan and Barbara Pease (2004) emphasized the fact that particular acts of nonverbal behavior can be easily misinterpreted. In order to cope with bias and prejudices in the analysis of nonverbal acts they proposed three basic rules. Firstly, gestures should be read in clusters. The authors compare body language with spoken language and underscore that the meaning of a particular nonverbal act may be altered by other nonverbal clues preceding, occurring simultaneously or immediately after the one in question. They insist that nonverbal gestures be interpreted at the backdrop of the whole situation. Secondly, congruence must me sought. This rule coincides with the theory discussed in the previous paragraphs. The researchers are convinced that inconsistencies between verbal and nonverbal messages have a potential to reveal true attitudes of the individuals, nonverbal messages having a higher propriety over verbal ones for the purposes of decoding a message. Thirdly, gestures should be interpreted in terms of the context. The context here implies external circumstances an individual is observed in.

The significance of appropriate interpretation of nonverbal cues was also studied by Adetunji and Sze (2012). They aimed at examining cultural differences in nonverbal behavior of representatives of different cultures with the help of application of a symbolic interactionism approach. Buck and VanLear (2002) propose that symbolic interactionism approach can be defined as intentional communication performed with the use of various symbols in which supposed interpretations of the receiver of a message determine the message. Adetunji and Sze (2012) point out that an essential part of communication as a process and one of the prerequisites for communication to be successful is an appropriate interpretation of the messages. The authors suggest that both culture and society carry a potential to determine interpretations of nonverbal acts and doubt whether this fact makes nonverbal communication of the individuals with different cultural backgrounds communicative and meaningful. However, the outcomes of their study underscore that symbolic interaction can help to find a solution in a situation of nonverbal communication in an intercultural setting. Adetunji and Sze (2012) do not clarify the implications of these results in the context of a job interview, therefore, this area leaves opportunities for follow-up research.

Another noticeable research on the topic of the importance of appropriate interpretation of nonverbal acts and inconsistencies was conducted by Castillo and Mallard (2012). They introduce the possibility of biased judgements on the basis of differing cultural backgrounds. The authors claim that nonverbal behavior has been studied by a number of scholars as an essential tool in evaluating deception judgements since in some cases nonverbal behavior of an individual provides an opportunity to identify his or her genuine feelings and attitudes. Notwithstanding, the authors of this research emphasize that there is a potential for a biased evaluation of nonverbal behavior when deception judgements are analyzed in the context of a cross-cultural interaction. They clarify that behavioral norms of the individuals including their nonverbal cues are determined by social norms that pertain to the particular culture. The evidence of Castillo and Mallard's (2012) research suggests that such cross-cultural biases can take place, however, they can be avoided provided that necessary valid and detailed information about social norms is presented. Nevertheless, the authors point out the limitations of this approach by saying that even though this specific information can prevent a truth-teller from being mistakenly suspected to be lying, it can also increase the probability that a liar will not be detected. Therefore, this approach should be thoroughly studied in the future and the information of social norms of different cultures should be proved and tested multiple times before being put into practice. Additionally, the authors also speculate about the role of stereotypes in evaluation of deception judgements. They put forward the assumption that “individuals scrutinize any nonverbal behavior that deviates from social norms and may attribute such behavior to deception” (Castillo & Mallard, 2012, p. 976). Consequently, this claim appears to be significant for the analysis of cultural differences in nonverbal behavior in the context of a job interview because the interviewers may rely on their cultural stereotypes in order to judge the truthfulness of the interviewee's verbal messages.

Noticeably, Burgoon, Guerrero and Floyd (2016) make a correlation between nonverbal aspect of communication and cross-cultural setting with the help of particular characteristics of culture. These characteristics refer to the cross-cultural concepts of several researchers including Geert Hofstede's (2005) cultural dimensions such as power distance, individualist/collectivist societies, feminine/masculine features, Edward Hall's high-context and low-context cultures and the concept of nonverbal immediacy (McCroskey, Sallinen, Fayer, Richmond and Barraclough, 1996). However, the explanation of the approach is not enough to study the influence of cultural background on non-verbal communication.

As it appears, nonverbal behavior seems to be a type of phenomenon that is not easy to define and analyze. However, the picture complicates when an attempt is made to examine nonverbal behavior of the individuals taking into consideration peculiarities different cultures. It goes without saying that there are several nonverbal acts that can be accurately translated into words in the language of a culture in which such nonverbal acts are performed. Notwithstanding, similar nonverbal acts have a potential to mean different things in different cultures. For example, distortion and opacity of the verbal message can be a necessary requirement in certain socio-cultural contexts where it is essential that verbal acts should be suppressed and made dependent on nonverbal acts. Such examples may be observed in behavior of the representatives of high-context cultures. It appears to be a common fact that cultural differences may be observed in some nonverbal acts, however, Alan and Barbara Pease made an important claim: “cultural differences are many, but the basic body language signals are the same everywhere” (Pease & Pease, 2004, p. 18). Under basic body language the scholars understand basic communication signals that convey the same meaning irrespective of the culture of an individual that displays them. Such nonverbal signals include smiling, which implies that an individual is happy or satisfied, frowning or scowling, which is utilized in order to show anger or irritation. In essence, these are nonverbal acts that demonstrate basic human emotions such as happiness, anger, fear. Another example of universal nonverbal signals can be a shoulder shrug used to show a lack of information or understanding. The authors also add head nodding and head shaking to the list of ultimate gestures. Nevertheless, it is advisable to be careful with the interpretation of this nonverbal act. A widely known example is Bulgarian culture, representatives of which use head nodding to demonstrate disagreement and head shaking as a sign of affirmation, making the meaning of these nonverbal signals different from the way they are perceived in the rest of the world.

Chen and Jack (2017) expand the discussion about universal facial expressions. They undertook a study in order to reveal limitations of previous theories, according to which six major facial movement patterns conveying the six emotions of happiness, surprise, fear, disgust, anger, and sad were pointed out to be universal across different cultures. However, the authors of this paper claimed that the previous research was biased and focused mainly on the representatives of Western cultures. They suggest that the four latent patterns of facial expressions would be a better alternative. Moreover, the authors underline the symbiosis of biology and culture

Apart from the topic of consistency of the meanings of nonverbal acts across cultures there is another debate among social psychology scholars. This debate is undertaken in order to find out whether specific nonverbal gestures are learned while being exposed to a particular culture, inborn or genetically transmitted. For example, Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1970) proved that smiling expressions may in fact be described as inborn gestures. He analyzed behavioral patterns of children that were born deaf and blind and concluded that these children had no opportunity to learn or copy these nonverbal acts from other people, therefore, smiling expressions seem to be inborn. Similarly, Ekman, Friesen and Sorenson (1969) also studied people's facial expressions, however, their research population encompassed people from five widely different cultures. The findings of their research proved that representatives of each culture used similar basic facial expressions. This fact led them to the conclusion that all basic facial expressions must be inborn nonverbal gestures.

The discussion about the nature of nonverbal cues was expanded by Tracy and Robins (2008) who introduced the importance of recognition of specific gestures in different cultures. They focused on examining nonverbal expressions of pride across cultures in order to learn whether recognition of its nonverbal manifestation generalizes among representatives of different cultures. The authors' choice of this complex human emotion was determined by a relative plainness of its nonverbal demonstration (Darwin, 1872). In essence, the findings of the study confirm Tracy and Robins's initial hypothesis about cultural universality of recognition of nonverbal expressions of pride. One of their case studies demonstrated that the same nonverbal demonstration of pride was identified not only by the individuals with American cultural background but also by non-English speaking cultures. This nuance helped the researchers to disprove so called replication crisis (Schooler, 2014) existent in this sphere of research. Another case study showed that nonliterate individuals who had only a meagre chance to be influence by Western culture were also able to distinguish nonverbal expressions of pride. This fact suggests the universality of the expression of this emotion and, therefore, claims nonverbal demonstration of pride to be an integral part of human nature. Ultimately, the rest of the researches' case studies propose that the expression of pride generalizes across cultures irrespectively of gender and ethnicity of the individuals. However, it seems important to add that the authors managed to prove that female participants of the experiment were able to recognize nonverbal manifestation of pride more successfully than male ones. This conclusion matches with Alan and Barbara Pease's (2004) affirmation that women possess higher levels of perceptiveness of nonverbal behavior in comparison to men.

The topic of cultural differences in nonverbal behavior is one of the pivotal ones in Alan and Barbara's (2004) Pease research. Even though their underlying idea is that different cultures share the same meanings of numerous nonverbal gestures, they also add that the most noticeable cultural differences are connected with such aspects of nonverbal behavior as proxemics, haptics, eye contact and insult gestures. The authors also draw an illustrative example of how cultural interpretations of nonverbal acts may change under certain circumstances. For example, nowadays American culture is actively spreading worldwide due to the expansion of global markets and a role that the USA play in globalization. Alan and Barbara Pease (2004) see American television as one of the reasons for cultural differences in nonverbal behavior to disappear. As a consequence, such common gestures as the Ring gesture may be now interpreted as “OK” message in cultures where this gesture initially served a role of an insult gesture.

Additionally, Alan and Barbara Pease (2004) identify three cross-cultural gestures that are most likely to be interpreted differently from the perspective of different cultures. These signs include the Ring, the Thumb-Up and the V-sign. The sign Ring in English-speaking countries is translated as “everything is alright”, “OK”. However, in France and Belgium this simple gesture can means “nothing” or “zero”. Meanwhile, in Japan the Ring is interpreted as “money” or “coins”. Finally, in some Mediterranean as well as in Turkey, Greece and some Arab countries this sign implies an orifice signal, frequently utilized as an insult referring to homosexuality or sexual intercourse. The Thumb-Up gesture in English-speaking countries can be interpreted as a hitch-hikers' sign, “OK” signal reference. Notwithstanding, in case when the thumb is jerked upwards it may be translated as a rude insult. In some cases, such as in the countries or regions that have a strong influence of the Greek culture the Thumb-Up sign is understood as a rude insult and means “get stuffed” and should not be used for hitch-hiking purposes. The V-sign has acquired a wide popularity thanks to Winston Churchill's frequent usage of this gesture during the Second World War in the meaning of “victory”. Noticeably, he used this gesture with his palm facing out, whereas the palm facing the speaker himself is perceived among British people as a sign of threat. However, in other parts of Europe the latter version of this nonverbal act implies 'victory'.

Another important research on the topic of cultural differences in nonverbal behavior was undertaken by Marsh, Elfenbein and Ambady (2003). The authors studied facial expressions of emotions of the representatives of different cultures and acknowledged the existence of such differences, however, they underscore that these differences are subtle and therefore call them “nonverbal accents”. An approach to nonverbal behavior chosen by the authors arouses interest: like Alan and Barbara Pease (2004) they infer similarities between body language and a spoken verbal language and propose that even though emotional expressions may serve as a universal language, local variations or accents of particular nonverbal acts may be witnessed in different regions. Remarkably, the findings of their research suggest that cultural accents in nonverbal acts are more explicit in emotional facial expressions rather than neutral facial expressions. In the former case it becomes easier to make inferences about the individual's nationality. Therefore, people are able to identify cultural backgrounds of other people by analyzing peculiarities of their nonverbal behavior. The researchers conclude by emphasizing that claims about the absolute universality of facial expressions of emotions across cultures seem to be incorrect.

Although multiple researches demonstrate the fact that culture can manifest itself in differences in nonverbal behavior, researches in the sphere of intercultural communication provide the evidence that there are similar communication dynamics in multicultural groups. According to Stella Ting-Toomey (1988) and her facework theory, what unites people from different cultural backgrounds is that they all want to maintain and negotiate in communication situations the public self-image they claim for themselves. This self-image is called face and it can be either negative or positive, depending on the goals of individual. Negative face is activated when a person wishes to disengage from a communicative act taking place within a particular social context. Whereas positive face is manifested when a person decides to be actively engaged in a social interaction. An important detail of Ting-Toomey's theory is that facework denotes specific verbal as well as nonverbal behavior implemented to maintain face or restore its loss. Additionally, the author claims that facework is actually influenced by culture and can vary.

Another theory closely related to facework is communication accommodation theory (Giles and Baker 2008), also referred to as CAT. This theory attempts to clarify what kind of adjustments individuals make to minimize, maintain, or increase social distance within the process of social interaction. Depending on the purposes of individuals in particular situations three strategies can be applied: converge, maintain or diverge. It should be underscored that the framework of this theory includes both verbal and nonverbal aspects of communication. Giles's theory is based on the psychological evidence that individuals favor those similar to themselves. Therefore, communication adjustment in both verbal and nonverbal aspects may be implemented in order to create a favorable impression. These implications should be concerned in the perspective of nonverbal behavior during a job interview.

Most importantly, the findings of Yammiyavar, Clemmensen and Kumar's (2008) research suggest that cultural background itself does not impact the rate or pattern of the occurrence of gestures, although particular gesture types may be culture specific. Additionally, an essential for this paper study was conducted by LaFrance and Mayo (1978) who summarized the overall impact of cultural aspects on nonverbal communication. They claim that there are differences as well as similarities in the display of nonverbal behavior in terms of cross-cultural research. According to the theoretical evidence presented in their paper, the presence of cultural uniformity or diversity in nonverbal behavior depends on the level of analysis. For example, if a focus is made on the individual and the report aspects of communication (what is communicated), cross-cultural uniformity is most likely to be witnessed. Whereas when interpersonal interaction and the command aspects (how something is communicated) is paid attention to, cultural diversity is revealed.

Finally, it goes without saying that in the era of globalization employment interview may sometimes be a part of an individual's cultural adaptation. Molinsky, Krabbenhoft, Ambady and Choi (2005) highlight the importance of gesture recognition in the process of cultural adaptation and claim that the ability to identify real and fake gestures of the representatives of another culture is positively associated with well-developed intercultural competence and a motivation to learn peculiarities of a new culture, which is crucial in the context of cultural adaptation.

Nonverbal behavior in the context of a job interview

In this section existing theoretical evidence on the topic of nonverbal behavior and its importance during a job interview will be discussed. The focus will be made on the impact of nonverbal behavior throughout an interview on its outcomes in the form of employment decisions of hiring personnel. It appears significant to underscore once again the fact that the interest of this paper lies in the nonverbal dynamics of the participants in the context of face-to-face professional interview.

it is necessary to understand the role of nonverbal communication in the job interview context. Young and Beier (1977) aimed at examining the effects nonverbal behavior of the candidates could have on subsequent hiring evaluations. The results of the study supported the hypothesis that nonverbal behavior during a job interview serves as a subtle reinforcement of verbal messages. This hypothesis is also proved by breakthrough findings of Carney, Cuddy and Yap (2010). According to the authors, nonverbal acts related to displays of power that were used by job candidates before the interview nurtured their positive psychological evaluation of themselves, which has a potential to increase their chances of employment. “A person can, by assuming two simple 1-min poses, embody power and instantly become more powerful has real-world, actionable implications” (p. 1363). Consequently, nonverbal behavior contributes to interviewer's evaluation of a candidate and can be consciously stimulated. Moreover, it should be in detail explained what kind of nonverbal behavior is positively perceived by recruiters. Frauendorfer, Denise and Mast reveal a link between applicant's nonverbal behavior and recruiter's hiring decision. “In particular, immediacy nonverbal behavior, such as a high amount of applicant smiling, nodding, eye contact, hand gestures, and pitch variation are positively related to recruiter evaluation” (p. 25).

In the previous section we discussed the significance of nonverbal behavior in comparison to verbal messages. It seems necessary to provide similar analysis in the context of a job interview, that is to study relative importance of nonverbal behavior on employment decisions. For example, Hollandsworth, Kazelskis, Stevens, and Dressel (1979) attempted to find out relative influence of nonverbal behavior, verbal communication and articulative communication on employment decisions of hiring personnel during a job interview. Their goal was to investigate which of aforementioned components has a prior significance in the context of a job interview. The research results propose that “appropriateness of content, fluency of speech, and composure are of greatest importance in contributing to a favorable employment decision” (p. 359). According to the researchers, appropriateness of content implies the ability to respond quickly and relevantly to the interview questions, elaborate on a particular subject and express personal opinions if needed. Additionally, appropriateness of content was ranked as the most important aspect, meanwhile fluency of speech and composure were considered to have weaker effect. The distinguishing feature of the findings of this research lies in the fact that aspects of nonverbal behavior such as manifestation of composure, body posture and eye contact, are claimed to be less important than appropriateness of content, in other words, verbal communication, from the human resources managers' point of view.

Apart from that, it seems essential to examine how scholars describe the mechanisms that help interviewers correlate nonverbal behavior of the applicant with their skills and form judgments about their suitability for the job. Gifford, Ng, and Wilkinson (1985) utilized Brunswik lens model in their research in order to ascertain how interviewers judge interviewees' qualities based on nonverbal cues displayed by them during a job interview. The researchers concentrated their attention on establishing links between the analysis of the candidates' nonverbal cues and their self-appraised motivation to work as well as social skills. Based on the answers provided by skilled hiring personnel that participated in the research, the evidence reveals that judgements about candidates' social skills can be more accurately inferred by the interviewers from the interviewees' nonverbal behavior than their motivation to work. The authors distinguish three nonverbal cues that conveyed nonverbal signals about candidates' social skills: “rate of gesturing, time spent talking, and formality of dress” (p. 735). Gifford, Ng, and Wilkinson (1985) elucidate that the interviewees are more likely to rely on their former social experience when participating in a job interview, that is why their nonverbal cues may imply information about the level of their social skills. Noticeably, since motivation to work is less clearly encoded in nonverbal behavior, the authors suggest that this quality might be more explicitly manifested via verbal communication with an interviewer. Finally, the scholars educe that there might be a possibility to train job applicants to display certain nonverbal cues that are attributed by the interviewers to desired job-related qualities.

Another important study was conducted by Levine and Feldman (2002). They also focused on examining influence of nonverbal behavior during a job interview on employment decisions of the interviewers. They compared nonverbal behavior of successful and less successful candidates during a number of mock interviews. Remarkably, the researchers included gender as an important variable in the analysis of nonverbal behavior. This factor led to a breakthrough inference that the level of likability by an interviewer, and, consequently, chances of employment, depend on differential patterns of nonverbal behavior displayed by women or men. This implies that advantageous patterns of nonverbal behavior are different among women and men. For example, in cases when men maintained a high level of eye contact throughout the interview, such candidates received low ratings of likability. However, women that displayed similar levels of eye contact were viewed in a more favorable light. It should be mentioned that participants of the mock interviews were interviewed by the representatives of the same gender, which might have reinforced the appropriateness of particular nonverbal behavior patterns. Researches in the field of social psychology proved that an abundant direct eye-contact between man is considered as a sign of threat and confrontation, while the same nonverbal behavior among women is associated with mutual interest. Therefore, gender and its evolutional development plays an important role in deciphering nonverbal clues of the individuals. Additionally, Levine and Feldman (2002) operate with the concept of self-monitoring. In accordance with Snyder (1987) self-monitoring is understood as the adjustment of a person's behavior to the needs of the circumstances with a purpose to efficiently keep track of the image projected to others. Levine and Feldman (2002) stress that “high self-monitors were perceived as more competent by interviewers … as compared to low self-monitors” (p. 1). It appears necessary to add that the researchers also found out that small changes in nonverbal behavior can impact the ratings of likability allocated by the interviewers. Ultimately, they suggest that the area of nonverbal behavior in the context of a job interview is yet to be thoroughly studied and propose that the likability ratings might depend on a combination of nonverbal cues instead of merely one particular cue.

DeGroot and Motowidlo (1999) attempted to investigate the effect of vocal and visual cues of the interviewees on the interviewers' judgements about them in the context of managerial job interviews. Under vocal cues the researchers understand “pitch, pitch variability, speech rate, pauses, and amplitude variability” (p. 986) and visual cues are studied in terms of “physical attractiveness, smiling, gaze, hand movement, and body orientation” (p. 986). The model of the impact of nonverbal cues on interviewers' impressions proposed by the authors is somewhat noticeable: they claim that vocal and visual cues exhibited by job applicants activate mediational mechanism in the form of personal reactions of the hiring personnel including liking and assumed credibility. An essential detail here is the fact that the interviewers develop affectionate reactions towards the candidates which have a potential to alter their decisions about the candidate's employment chances. These affectionate reactions are based on the level of the candidate's interpersonal skills that are exhibited through nonverbal cues. The aforementioned factor might be connected with the interviewer's expectations of the interviewee to elicit same positive reactions during work as during the job interview. Additionally, the authors are convinced that the positive effect connected with vocal and visual cues is especially essential in the interview for a managerial job since managerial positions generally require advanced interpersonal skills. Therefore, these nonverbal cues may even predict candidate's future job performance.

Having analyzed a significant number of scientific papers on the topic of nonverbal behavior in a job interview, it should be pointed out that the majority of the scholars assumed that solely nonverbal behavior of a job applicant influences the outcomes of the interview. The findings of Nguyen, Frauendorfer, Mast and Gatica-Perez's (2014) suggest a different approach. They endeavored to trace down a link between job seekers' nonverbal behavior and their hirability from the perspective of an interviewer with the help of computational framework in order to automatize the analysis of nonverbal behavior. Remarkably, similarly to DeGroot and Motowidlo (1999), the researchers decided to focus on audio and visual behavioral cues. Another noticeable feature of this study that should be underscored is the fact that nonverbal behavior not only of the job applicants but also of the interviewers was meticulously analyzed. The evidence of this research suggests that there are two types of nonverbal cues that have a potential to predict candidate's employment chances: applicant's audio behavioral cues and interviewer's visual behavioral cues. This fact implies that the candidate's hirability score depends not solely on their own nonverbal behavior but also on the body language of the interviewer. As the scholars clarify, a representative of hiring personnel exhibits visible nonverbal responses (such as kinesics, proxemics and oculesics) that are determined by the candidate's nonverbal behavior. In turn, the candidate's nonverbal behavior is represented by their audio cues. Therefore, according to Nguyen et al. (2014), specifically this type of cues plays a pivotal role in the interviewer's judgements regarding employment chances of the candidate. Consequently, they claim that it is possible to presume the results of the interview on the basis of nonverbal behavior of the interviewer. Additionally, the authors also studied the effect of psychometric questionnaires on the candidate's hirability. The results demonstrate that hiring personnel rely on their judgements about the applicant's employment chances that are derived from interpersonal interaction with them in the job interview setting rather than on questionnaires. These results are also proved by Dipboye's (1994) research.

It should be emphasized that as numerous other forms of testing job interviews possess significant drawbacks and limitations. In order to support this claim findings of Arvey and Campion's (1982) research needs to be presented. The authors put forward the idea that employment interviews are generally deprived of validity due to a number of various reasons including interviewer's bias, time limitations, etc. These factors do not give a chance to fully and objectively evaluate candidate's skills and aptitude to work. Nevertheless, the authors are convinced that job interviews will remain a popular and integral aspect of employment worldwide because they provide an opportunity to get a slight understanding of such essential skills of a candidate as sociability and verbal fluency that are a necessary requirement almost for any type of work.

It appears obvious to find out which particular aspects of nonverbal behavior are claimed to be of prior importance in creating favorable impressions in the context of absence of extended information and limited time from the perspective of different scholars. For example, Carl (1980) investigated various aspects of nonverbal behavior traditionally outlined in this research area including the use of time, eyes, hands, smiles, paralanguage and posture. Having analyzed this study, we can come to the conclusion that posture appears to be another highly important nonverbal cue that is powerful enough to contribute to the positive or negative evaluation of the interviewer since its visibility surpasses those of others nonverbal cues and tends to be more obvious to the observer. Carl (1980) accentuates that upward posture serves as assign of confidence and responsibility, while slouching conveys lack of interest, confidence and even negative self-esteem. The author's suggestion is to exhibit strong upward posture with a slight movement forward towards the interviewer in order to indicate their personal interest and stick to open arm gestures.

Watson and Smeltzer (1982) also focused on examining the importance of nonverbal communication during a job interview and attempted to find out those aspects of nonverbal behavior that are perceived by hiring personnel as the most essential in creating a favorable overall impression. In contrast to previous studies, the results of this study demonstrate that appearance was described as the pivotal element out of all nonverbal cues by the interviewers, who took part in the research. Additionally, the attire of a candidate was identified as the most significant aspect of appearance. However, the researchers express concern regarding the general unwritten standards of dress that is considered appropriate for a job interview. As a rule, candidates are expected to wear classical suits with white shirts or blouses and classical dark trousers or skirts. Watson and Smeltzer (1982) state that this factor has a potential to make all of the job seekers similar to each other and encourage interviewers to pay more attention to other discriminating nonverbal cues. Remarkably, the researchers also claim that “importance of nonverbal factors changes throughout the interview” (Watson & Smeltzer, 1982, p. 34). For example, they have found out that for the creation of favorable first impression appearance, punctuality, and handshake are vital, whereas impressions connected with the performance of a job seeker during an employment interview that remain in the minds of the interviewers after the interview are dynamics of eye contact and facial expressions. Finally, the authors accentuate the significance to display appropriate nonverbal behavior not only in the beginning and at the end of an interview but throughout the whole interview.