This article was downloaded by: [German National Licence 2007]

On: 27 September 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 912873514]
Publisher Psychology Press
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Psychology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713659663

Training Englishmen in the Non-Verbal Behaviour of Arabs

Peter Colletta
a
Oxford University, England

To cite this Article Collett, Peter(1971) 'Training Englishmen in the Non-Verbal Behaviour of Arabs', International Journal
of Psychology, 6: 3, 209 — 215
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00207597108246684
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207597108246684

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 International Journd of P.ycbolopy
JournaI International de PsycboLcgie
1971,Vol. 6, NO 3, 209-215

TRAINING ENGLISHMEN
I N THE NON-VERBAL BEHAVIOUR OF ARABS
AN EXPERIMENT ON INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

PETER COLLETT Oxford Ufiiutmi& England

Deux experiences sont relaties : l'une porte sur 10 Arabes, qui ont rencontrt
Downloaded By: [German National Licence 2007] At: 00:36 27 September 2010

deux sujets anglais et ont discuti avec eux; on leur demande ensuite de choisir
entre 1es deux anglais. Le sujet anglais experimental a appris prialablement
quelles itaient les habitudes non verbales arabes; l'autre, le sujet contrble, a resu
des informations non pertinentes. Les sujets expirimentaux se sont mieux con-
formis B l'enseignement r e p que les sujets contr6les. Les risultats montrent iga-
lement que les Arabes prifkrent les sujets expirimentaux B plusieurs titres. La
seconde experience est une riplique de la premiere, mais il s'agit cette fois $An-
glais et non plus d'iirabes, l'hypothkse itant que les Anglais prifkreraient les
compatriotes qui se comportent B la maniere anglaise plutBt qu'arabe. L'hypo-
these n'est pas confirm& : les Anglais, dans leur prifirence finale, sont indiffi-
rents aux manipulations expirimentales. Les sujets expirimentaux sont plus
souvent choisis dans l'expirience arabe que dans l'expirience anglaise.

Recently social psychologists have begun to focus their attention on commu-

nication between cultures and the misunderstandings that arise within the context
of intercultural encounters. To date their concern has largely been with cultural
differences in cognition (see Foa, 1967; Foa and Chemers, 1967; Danielian, 1967;
Fiedler et af., 1971). Apart from differences in cognition and spoken convention
affecting the course of an intercultural encounter, it is likely that cultural varia-
tions in non-verbal behaviour might also constitute a source of misunderstanding,
and therefore provide a viable sphere for training in culture-contact. Haines (1964)
and his colleagues have developed a technique for instructing Americans in the
paralinguistic skills of target cultures. They show that trainees who have been
confronted with a video-tape feedback of their own performances manifest
better learning and retention of such skills than do those who have received
conventional instruction. Hall (1964a, 1964b) has written at length on non-verbal
behaviour in several cultures, and he has suggested that whereas the verbal
content of a communication is usually perceived in intercultural encounters,
the non-verbal signah are more frequently misconstrued. Watson and Graves
(1966) have corroborated some of his observations in an empirical study in which
they showed that Arabs engage in more mutual looking, position themselves
far closer, orient themselves more directly, talk far louder and touch each other
slightly more during face-to-face interaction than do Americans.
In light of these cross-cultural differences and some recent research which
suggests that non-verbal behaviours play as important, if not a more significant
I should like to thank my supervisors Michael Argyle, Paul Harris, Florisse Alkema and
Ederyn Williams for their help and suggestions.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL DE PSYCHOLOGIE - VOL. 6, No 3
 210 PETER COLLETT

role than language in the communication of affect (Argyle ef al., 1971), it was
decided to investigate the possibility of more effective communication by English-
men who employ the non-verbal behaviour of Arabs during interaction with
them. A programme, designed to train Englishmen to employ these social skills,
was therefore constructed from the Watson and Graves data, a review of the
literature on Arab behaviour and material provided by Arab informants. The
next task consisted in testing the effectiveness of the training programme. It
was hypothesised that naive Arab Ss would prefer Englishmen who manifested
typically “ Arab ” behaviour higher than they would those Englishmen who
continued to employ their native behaviours. Secondly, we anticipated that
Englishmen would show preference for compatriots who employed “ English ”
rather than “ Arab ” behaviour in their presence. This latter hypothesis was
invoked to render the findings of the first experiment unambiguous and to show
Downloaded By: [German National Licence 2007] At: 00:36 27 September 2010

that culture-trained Ss had been equipped with specifically Arab skills and not
with a sample of pancultural skills.

METHOD AND PROCEDURE

Suljectts
Ten Arabs and fifty Englishmen, studying in Oxford and London, served as Ss. The Arabs
were contacted through an Arab society and the English Ss were randomly selected from the
student bodies of Oxford University and the London School of Economics. All Ss were male,
between the ages of 18 and 2 5 .
Method
To test the iirst hypothesis, the Arab ” experiment was undertaken. Each of the ten trials
I‘

involved an Arab and two Englishmen. On arrival at the laboratory the three Ss were ushered
into separate cubicles. The two Englishmen were informed that they would be meeting an Arab
and were then randomly assigned to the experimental (E) and control (C) conditions. The
control subject (CS) was provided with unstructured material on the Arab world which was
deemed to be unrelated to the immediate task of conversing with an Arab. The experimental
subject (ES) received the training programme which instructed him as follows (preamble
excluded) :

I. When you are introduced to your Arab partner, rise to your feet, then shake hands while
lowering your head slightly. Nod and smile, all the time looking him in the eyes. 2. Once you
have both sat down, pull your chair toward the Arab‘s so that, with your arm extended, you
could touch his chest. Do not take up the out-of-reach distance that we usually adopt when we
meet strangers. 3. Arabs always sit ‘‘ straight on ”,instead of orienting themselves away from
the interactor as we so often do. Try to do likewise. 4. Although you may find it rather strange
at first, it is important that you look the Arab constantly in the eyes while talking to him. Avoid
averting your gaze at all costs, as Arabs feel more comfortable when there is more mutual
looking. 5 . Although the smile usually conveys frienship in our culture, the emphasis placed
o n smiling as a communication of friendship is far greater among Arabs. So try to smile at
appropriate moments. 6. Do not at any stage point the soles of your feet at the Arab, for in his
culture this is an insult, meaning something like ‘‘ You are worth as much as the dirt on my feet”.
7. Arabs prefer warm and frank interchanges. They also prefer personalised as opposed to ab-
stract treatments of the topic at hand. In fact a delicate and considered answer in quite likely
to offend him. So, if you speak your mind (without being offensive or disagreeing unnecessarily)
and display a friendly and polite attitude, you are more likely to put the Arab at ease. 8. As
soon as the experimental session is over, get up, shake hands with the Arab, then walk to the
door. Allow him to leave the room first by opening the door and touching him on the shoulder
(as you might a friend) as he goes through. Once in the passage, talk to him until the exper-
imenter interrupts you. Then shake hands again. While in the passage, stand fairly close to the
XNTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY - JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL DE PSYCHOLOGIE
 TRAINING I N ARAB NON-VERBAL BEHAVIOUR 211

Arab. 9. Test yourself to see whether you remember these instructions. Do not disclose to the
Arab that you have learned the above information.

After 10-15 minutes both Englishmen were individually shown the room in which they
were to meet the Arab. Essentially this afforded an opportunity for a practice session with the
ES, during which the experimenter checked his behaviour. The CS was entertained in this room
for the same period of time, during which he was briefed on the procedure and exhorted to d o
”.
his best to “ make a good impression ” and put the Arab at ease Once the Englishmen
‘I

had been acquainted with the experimental room and had returned to their separate cubicles,
the Arab was seated in the experimental room and an English S was brought in and introduced
to him 2. The experimenter asked them to converse on the topic of Love for five minutes and,
on a signal, to leave the room and wait in the passage till he had “ switched off the tape-recorder ”
in the operations room and joined them. He then retired to an adjacent room which provided
a view of the encounter through a one-way mirror. During the interaction a video tape-recorder
and an event recorder were used by the experimenter and an assistant to record the behaviours
contained within the training programme and itemised in Table I . After five minutes the conver-
Downloaded By: [German National Licence 2007] At: 00:36 27 September 2010

sation was terminated and the pair returned to their cubicles. At the end of each trial, the Arab
was requested to make a series of sociometric choices between the two Englishmen he had met
and he was asked to write a few paragraphs, giving his reasons for these choices.
To test the hypothesis that Englishmen prefer compatriots who manifest English rather
then Arab-like behaviour we ran another ten trials. The trials of the “ English ” experiment
were identical in form to the previous trials of the Arab Experiment, though on this occasion
an Englishman occupied the role (henceforth referred to as R) that had been filled by Arabs in
the preceding trials. The preamble and phrasing of the training programme were altered for
the purposes of credibility and the control subjects were now provided with a text on psychology
rather than material o n the Arab world.

RESULTS
Independent variables
Concerning the independent variables, we wished to show that, in both
experiments, ESs performed more in line with the prescriptions of the training
than did their control counterparts, and that the experimental manipulations
in the English experiment matched those in the original Arab experiment. Appli-
cation of Fisher’s Exact Probability Test to the data for the first five features of
recorded behaviour in Table I ( i e . , the discrete data) revealed significant differ-
TABLE 1
PERFORMANCE OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL SUBJECTS I N THE ARAB AND ENGLISH TRIALS
-___

Features of behaviour
lE Arab
C
I E
English
C
I. No of Ss who shook hands on 1st meeting I0 9 4
2. No of Ss who did intermediate handshake 7 I 0
3. No of Ss who did parting handshake 7 0 0
4. No of Ss who allowed R through door first I0 I 5
5 . No of Ss who touched R on shoulder I0 0 0
6. Interpersonal distance in feet (mean) 3.85 6.35 7.25
7. Englishmens’ yo looking time (mean) 92.00 74.63 66.90
8. Average length of look in secs (mean) 26.50 I I .oo 8.25
9. Smiling time in secs (mean) 9.75 12.00 7.50
10.Personalised us abstract discourse - - -

2 Trials were balanced for order, so that on alternate trials, an ES met an Arab first.

VOL. 6, NO 3
 212 PETER COLLETT

ences (p < .or) in the expected direction between the performances of E and CSs
in both experiments for the intermediate and parting handshakes, allowing R
through the door first and touching on the shoulder. Though ESs engaged
in significantly more initial handshakes than CSs in the English experiment,
no such difference was found in the Arab experiment, thus suggesting the redun-
dancy of this instruction in the training programme. Similarly, when comparing
across experiments we were able, in all cases other than that of the initial hand-
shake, to point to the absence of significantly different behaviours between
ESs in the Arab and English experiments, and between the CSs in the Arab
and English experiments. The results of the initial handshake indicate that CSs
in the Arab experiment engaged in significantly more ( p < .oi) handshakes than
CSs in the English experiment. Either this reflects the fact that Arab Rs initiated
this handshake more often than English Rs, or else it suggests that the relative
Downloaded By: [German National Licence 2007] At: 00:36 27 September 2010

informality of the second experiment, Le., meeting a compatriot, demanded less

handshakes.
Separate analyses of variance were computed for the last four features of
behaviour in Table I . For each analysis there were two factors, Experiments
(Arab vs English) and Conditions (E VJ C). Significant main effects for conditions
were found in the analysis of interpersonal distance (Flr18 = 388.70,p < .OOI),
looking time (F,,,, = 2z.j I, p < .oar) and mean length of look (F,,,, = I 1.96,
p < .oI), but not in the analysis of the data for smiling. This indicates that ESs
sat closer to Rs, looked more and engaged in longer looks then CSs in both
experiments, and that ESs failed to follow instructions concerning smiling.
Throughout there were no main effects for experiments. A significant interaction
between experiments and conditions was found in the analysis of interpersonal
distance, showing that the experimental manipulation in the English experiment
was stronger than that in the Arab experiment. To obtain data on the extent
to which Ss discussed Lore in a personalised as opposed to an abstract manner,
transcripts of the E and CSs’ side of the dialogue were independently rated by
three judges on a ten-point scale. Precautions were taken to ensure that they
remained unaware of which Ss fell into which condition. Inter-rater reliability
was not found to be significantly positive, indicating that judges were unable
to agree on what constitutes a personalised or an abstract treatment of topic.
This data was therefore discarded.
These calculations point to the absence of significant differences between
experiments with respect to all of the tabled features of performance other than
those of initial handshake and interpersonal distance in the control condition.
As these differences between experiments would only operate in favour of discon-
firmation of the second hypothesis we felt that they could safely be ignored.
The English experiment was therefore regarded as a satisfactory replication of the
Arab experiment. The calculations for differences between the behaviours of E
and CSs in both experiments showed that ESs performed significantly more in
line with instructions on all counts other than initial handshake (feature I) and
smiling (feature 9). We were unable to obtain reliable data on treatment of topic
(feature 10). Other items of the training programme, such as orientation to the
other person and position of the feet were excluded from the analyses because
no variations in these behaviours were observed during the experiments.

m R N A T I O N A L JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY - JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL DE PSYCHOLOGIE

 TRAINING IN ARAB NON-VERBAL BEHAVIOUR

Dependent variables
The major dependent variable consisted of a questionnaire which required
Rs to make sociometric choices between the E and CSs they had met. The state-
ments, all phrased in the direction of positive evaluation, and the data from
the questionnaire are presented in Table z. Three separate analyses of this data

TABLE 2
RESULTS OF THE SOCIOMETRIC-CHOICE QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE ARAB
Downloaded By: [German National Licence 2007] At: 00:36 27 September 2010

AND ENGLISH EXPERIMENTS

Item in questionnaire : R would...

i No of times E/C chosen

EArabC I English
E C
I. prefer to share flat with E/C 9 1 4 6
2. prefer to be friends with E/C 9 1 6 4
3. prefer to take E/C back to his family 8 2 6 4
4. prefer to continue conversation with E/C 1 5 6 4
5 . trust E/C more 9 = 4 6
6. thinks E/C was the nicer of the two 8 2 4 6
7. thinks E/C would understand him better 8 2 6 4

were undertaken. When the data were collapsed across items and a x 4 computed,
it was found that ESs were chosen significantly more often ( p < .or) in the
Arab experiment than in the English experiment. An item by item analysis of
the data, using Fisher’s Exact Probability Test, revealed significantlymore choices
of the ESs in the Arab experiment than in the English experiment on the items
of “ prefer to share a flat (apartment) with ” and “ trust him more ” (items I
and 5 ) . The last computation consisted of a within-experiment, item by item
analysis in which the number of choices of ESs was compared with a binomial
distribution. None of the items in the English experimen were significantly
different from a random process. This shows, contrary to our second hypothesis,
that English Rs did not prefer compatriots who behaved in an English fashion;
but instead remained indifferent to the experimental manipulations. On the other
hand it was found that the extent to which Arabs chose ESs over CSs differed
significantly from chance ( p < .OII) on three items. They stated they would
prefer to share a flat with, would prefer to be friends with, and would trust
ESs significantly more often than they would CSs (items I , z and j). The Arab Rs
VOL. 6, No 3
 214 PETER COLLE?T

also showed preference ( p < .oi 5 ) for ESs which did not reach the criterion of
significance but which reflected a positive trend in favour of ESs on the items
of " take back to family "," think he was the nicer of the two " and " he would
understand me better " (items 3, 6 and 7). They were indifferent as to with whom
they would prefer to continue the conversation (item 4).

DISCUSSION A N D CONCLUSION

Initially we hypothesised that Arabs would be more favourably inclined

towards Englishmen who employed Arab-like behaviour than towards those
who behaved in a characteristically English fashion. The analysis of the inde-
pendent variables showed that the behaviour of E and CSs differed significantly
Downloaded By: [German National Licence 2007] At: 00:36 27 September 2010

in most instances, i.e., engaging in the intermediate and final handshakes, allowing
the Arab through the door first and touching him on the shoulder, sitting close
to the interlocutor and looking more and longer, and it is to these differences
in performance that we attribute the subsequent, more frequent preference by
Arabs for ESs. The second hypothesis, that Englishmen prefer compatriots
who behave in an English fashion over those who adopt Arab behaviour, was
not confirmed. The analyses of the independent variables revealed significant
differences in behaviour between E and CSs, but these variations, though similar
to those in the Arab experiment, were not shown to be related to preferences
for particular fellow Englishmen. This suggests that whereas Arabs place more
emphasis on variations in certain non-verbal behaviours when assessing English-
men, Englishmen attend more to the residual features of performance (possibly
tone, manifest attitude, etc.) in evaluating their compatriots. Thus, in relation
to a limited sphere of behaviour the experiment illustrates that Arabs prefer
Englishmen who behave like themselves over those those who continue to behave
like Englishmen in their presence.
Several aspects of the experimental design warrant discussion. First of all,
a repeated measures design would probably have been better, in that Arab and
English Rs would have met the same English E and CSs. Furthermore, instead
of selecting statements for the questionnaire on an a priori, intuitive basis, we
would have been more well-advised to employ an idiographic procedure which
involved using culture-relevant statements which had experimentally been shown
to have high salience for Arabs and Englishmen respectively (Hall, 1969). Alter-
natively we could have improved the dependent variable by asking Rs to make
behavioural choices which they believed would implicate them in a later phase
of the experiment, rather than the hypothetical statements used in this study.
Finally, a more rigorous form of training with further practice trials and video-
tape feedback could have been instituted to ensure more consistent and authentic
performances by ESs.
This investigation was concerned with equipping Ss with a repertoire of
motoric social skills from another culture. Unlike many other studies on the
effects of culture training, it involved a fairly detailed analysis of what occurred
during the interactions, and this enabled us to stipulate which behavioural differ-
ences, rather than which differences in training, were responsible for the more
frequent selection of ESs by Arabs (see Collett, 1970). The procedure has impli-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY - JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL DE PSYCHOLOGIE
 TRAINING IN ARAB NON-VERBAL BEHAVIOUR 211

cations for programmes that are designed to train foreigners to accommodate

themselves in target cultures.

REFERENCES

ARGYLE,M., ALKEMA, F. & GILMORE,R. The communication of friendly and hostile attitudes
by verbal and non-verbal signals. European JournaC of Social Pycboology, 1971(in press).
COLLETT, P. Notes on intercultural training. Unpublished, 1970.
DANIELIAN, J. Live simulation of affect-laden cultural cognitions. Journal of Conflicf Resohtiott,
1967, 3, 312-132.
FIEDLER, F.E., MITCHELL,T.R. & TRIANDIS,H.C. The culture assimilator. An approach to
cross-cultural training. Journal .f Applied Psychology, 1971,5 5 , 95-102.
FOA,U.G. Differentiation in cross-cultural communication. In L. Thayer (Ed.), Communiration,
concepts and perspectives. Washington : Spartan Books, 1967.
Downloaded By: [German National Licence 2007] At: 00:36 27 September 2010

FOA,U.G. & CHEMERS, M.M. The significance of role behaviour differentiation for cross-
cultural interaction training. International Journal of Psychology, 1967,I, 45-67.
HAINES,D.B. Training for culture-contact and interaction skills. Aerospace Medical Research
Laboratories, Wright-Paterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1964.
HALL,E.T. Adumbration as a feature of intercultural communication. American Anthropologist,
r&a, 6, 154-163.
HALL,E.T. The hidden dimension. New York : Doubleday, 1964b.
HALL,E.T. Personal communication, 1969.
WATSON, O.M. & GRAVES, T.D. Quantitative research in proxemic behaviour. American Anthro-
po!ogist, 1966, 38, 971-985.

VOL. 6, NO 3