Verbal and nonverbal communication of facilitative conditions.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that nonverbal communication in the counseling process is of critical importance in furthering our understanding of the conditions under which counseling is effective. Within the past decade nonverbal communication has gained increasing prominence as an object of study; within the past 5 years the counseling literature has begun to reflect the importance of the total communication process to the texture and outcome of the counseling relationship. Defined in a rather broad fashion, nonverbal behaviors which have been demonstrated to have measurable impact on the counseling process include eye contact, trunk lean, distance, body orientation, movement, facial expression, vocal intonation, gestures, and selected features of the spatial environment (Broekman Chaikin, Derlega, Dinges Ekman Fretz, 1966; Graves Haase, 1970; Haase Haase Hackney, 1974; Lacrosse, 1975; Lee, Zingle, Patterson, Ivey, Smith, 1975; Stone Strahan Sweeney similar ratios have been reported by Birdwhistell (1970) and Argyle, Alkema, and Gilmour (197 1). It seems fairly clear that the balance between verbal and nonverbal cues in the communication process is critical for the perceived impact of the overall message. As early as 1965 Argyle and Dean demonstrated that shifting the balance between verbal and nonverbal channels alters the perception and the communicational significance of the message. Inasmuch as the counseling process is so heavily rooted in a complex communicational context, an understanding of the balance and interplay between verbal and nonverbal cues in the relationship becomes important. Of the many variables which have received attention in the counseling literature, the facilitative conditions proposed by Rogers (1951, 1957) have achieved wide acceptance in counseling practice. These conditions have been noted to be essential to the quality of the relationship; research evidence suggests that helping relationships depend heavily on these conditions in myriad forms (Bergin Carkhuff, 1971). Haase and Tepper (1972) have shown that the communication of empathy is heavily dependent on the verbal message but not to the exclusion of the