Four key problems which have impeded research on nonverbal communication are examined: (a) sampling and labeling nonverbal behavior, (b) preserving the context in which the behavior occurs, (c) generating a source of nonverbal behavior, and (d) determining the criterion of accurate interpretation. These problems are particularly acute for research on the recognition of emotion. Seven distinct varieties of context are identified, and the degree to which research has been faithful to these contexts is discussed. The criterion problem is described, and it is argued that this problem is insoluble within the emotion recognition tradition. The paper presents a 9-cell typology of research designs, and the relative merits and frequencies of these nine design types are described. Finally, a new concept in nonverbal communication research is presented. This concept, embodied in the Social Interpretations Task (SIT), provides a solution to some of the problems of context and criterion which have beset the field of nonverbal communication.

Roundtable on Approaches to the Analysis of Advertisements Robin M. Akert (bio), Andy Berndt (bio), Paul Kurnit (bio), Robert Goldman (bio), Doug Holt (bio), Craig Markus (bio), William O’Barr (bio), Lisa Peñaloza (bio), Tom Reichert (bio), and Faith Davis Ruffins (bio) WMO: This roundtable will be conducted in two parts. During the first part, the scholars will meet to discuss interpretive strategies in teaching and research. During the second part, we will be joined by three people from the advertising industry—two of whom are creatives, and another of whom has a lot of experience working with creatives who write advertisements directed at children. The participants are diverse, providing a good academic mix and a variety of perspectives. I hope that we can not only have a significant dialogue among ourselves on the ways we interpret and use advertising in our research and teaching, but also share some of those perspectives with people in the industry and listen to their critiques of our ideas. But it is not simply a matter of listening to what they have to say by way of critiques, but also educating them and the industry to other ways through which they might look at things. The goal of this roundtable is a dialogue that goes both ways by opening up a dialogue that really hasn’t existed much in the past. The agenda for today is to focus on how we approach the analysis, decoding, and interpretation of advertisements. Judith Williamson started doing this in the late 1970s in her book, Decoding Advertisements. How she analyzed and interpreted advertisements gained a lot of currency among other scholars. People have taken notice of how she wrote about the meaning of advertisements. Some have followed her rather directly, some adopted her perspective, and others criticized it and went on to do other kinds of things with it. If you look at other analysts, they have done both similar and quite different things over the years with what they’ve pulled out of advertisements, what they see in them, what they think is worthy of commentary. I’d like us to focus on that issue: what each of us does with regard to looking into advertising and drawing out the things and issues and perspectives. I’d like us to focus our discussion not just on what we do substantively and theoretically, but on how we do it as well. I’d like to begin by asking each of the participants to take a minute to say exactly how advertising enters into your teaching and research and how you go about analyzing and interpreting ads. TR: I’m Tom Reichert from the Department of Advertising and Public Relations at the University of Alabama. One of things we teach students is how to do advertising with good ethical considerations in mind, to make sure that they do responsible advertising. Also, we focus on developing strategies and various advertising skills. I approach advertising from a traditional social science perspective. I’m interested in the content and effects of advertising. That’s what I’ll be talking about today. DH: Doug Holt. I used to be in an advertising department. When I was, I taught advertising management, but I tried to teach it as a culturalist course. In fact, I used Bob’s book, Sign Wars,1 as one of the assigned readings. I had a fun time trying to teach the students what hypersignification meant, even though I definitely thought it was one of the more accessible terms. Since moving to Harvard Business School, I’ve found that Harvard Business is very advertising-illiterate, and I’ve tried to push the students to be more culturally literate. I’m teaching a course called “Branding, Advertising, and Culture,” from a culturalist perspective, but behind it is a critical, socio-cultural view that is presented as a management perspective. So it’s kind of an odd synthesis, but I do teach in a business school. RA: I’m Robin Akert. I’m in the Department of Psychology at Wellesley College, which is, of course, a liberal arts college. There are no business, marketing, or advertising majors. I’m a social...

Sociological InquiryVolume 50, Issue 3-4 p. 393-419 The Encoding of Meaning: A Test of Three Theories of Social Interaction Dane Archer, Dane Archer Professor of sociology, University of California, Santa CruzSearch for more papers by this authorRobin M. Akert, Robin M. Akert Doctoral candidate, Department of Psychology, Princeton UniversitySearch for more papers by this author Dane Archer, Dane Archer Professor of sociology, University of California, Santa CruzSearch for more papers by this authorRobin M. Akert, Robin M. Akert Doctoral candidate, Department of Psychology, Princeton UniversitySearch for more papers by this author First published: July 1980 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00028.xCitations: 21 Note: We would like to thank Patricia Maés and Rebecca Mehaffey for collecting some of the data described in this chapter. In addition, we would like to thank Paul Ekman and John K. Kitsuse for their extremely helpful suggestions and comments. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Citing Literature Volume50, Issue3-4July 1980Pages 393-419 RelatedInformation