Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55 (Summer 1991), 235-253 Perceiving Nonverbal Messages: Effects of Immediacy and Encoded Intent on Receiver Judgments VALERIE MANUSOV This study deals with whether a perceiver will distinguish between nonverbal messages sent with specific intent versus those representing a more spontaneous "gestalt" and the extent to which these diverse behavioral modes correlate with the degree of immediacy reflected in the nonverbal behaviors. Despite evidence that largely purposeful nonverbal behaviors are physically different from those encoded with less clear intent, participants (N = 62) saw most nonimmediate behaviors as intentionally sent while immediate behaviors were seen as more unintentional. Behaviors indicative of immediacy were also viewed as directed toward the perceiver and resulted in more favorable evaluations of the message sender. Individuals behaving with greater immediacy were interpreted as being more competent and evaluated more favorably than those using low immediacy. Type of intent had little impact on social perceptions. I NTEREST IN THE COGNITIONS that influence communicative interactions has become more commonplace in research on message behavior (Berger & Roloff, 1982; Greene, 1984; Hewes & Planalp, 1987) with the processing used in the creation and interpretation of nonverbal behavior receiving notable attention (e.g., Ickes, Tooke, Stinson, Baker, & Bissonnette, 1988; O'Connor & Gifford, 1988). Of particular interest for scholars attempting to understand the nature of nonverbal phenomena is an investigation regarding the extent to which the intentionality or deliberateness of behavior correlates with the cognitive processes in- volved in encoding and decoding nonverbal messages. Largely because of its position in defining "relevant" subject matter for communication scholars, deciphering the role that intentionality plays in communicative behavior, especially its nonverbal aspects, has been discussed at length (see Bradac & Bowers, 1984; Motley, 1986). Part of the difficulty in making this delineation lies in deciding from which perspective intent should be studied: the encoder (Motley, 1990), the decoder (Andersen, in press), the message (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1989), or the interaction (Stamp & Knapp, 1990). Each of these vantage points implies an alternate view on the most veridical approach to understanding communicative intent. VALERIE MANUSOV is Assistant Professor In the Department of Communication, Rutgers University, 4 Huntington Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08903.