Figure 1 serves as a framework for reviewing recent findings pertaining to nonverbal encoding.
The horizontal axis shows that encoding covers a continuum anchored by static and dynamic cues,
and the vertical axis covers a continuum anchored by nonconscious and conscious encoding pro-
cesses. Representative examples of encoded information are shown within the resulting quadrants.
The focus in this review is on quadrants 1 and 2; quadrants 3 and 4 are covered to a lesser extent.
Our initial focus is primarily on the potential informational value of encoded quadrant 1 cues—that
is, cues that are transmitted more or less nonconsciously to perceivers and appear to be relatively
static to them (e.g., a sender’s age). In this context, static does not always mean not moving; for
example, a sender’s gait may appear to be relatively the same over time to perceivers, unless the
terrain (from dry to icy) or condition of the sender (injury) changes suddenly.
1
Static refers to
encoded behavior that is relatively typical for a specific type of sender (e.g., a child with autism)
across different contexts. These cues may thus serve as potential markers of senders’ attributes
(e.g., biological sex, personality, clinical conditions).
The center circle depicts how proximal time factors (e.g., situational factors impacting the
behavior) and distal time factors (i.e., the process begins in the past; e.g., a sender’s developmental
1
Our use of the terms static and dynamic is, therefore, different from the way in which researchers often describe NVC stimuli
that are shown to perceivers, where static literally means not moving (i.e., a photograph) while dynamic means moving (as in
a video) (Schlegel et al. 2017a).
274 Hall ·
Horgan ·
Murphy Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2019.70:271-294. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by University of Washington on 01/09/19. For personal use only.