The Acceptance or rejection in interpersonal dialogue are largely perceived by Gestures and signs non-verbalaccording to an investigation by the Austral University.
The study, which covered the period 2020-2025 and analyzed 558 signals recorded by graduate students, came to this conclusion 60% of signs of acceptance occurred through non-verbal communication.
This is one of the report’s most compelling findings The attentive gaze is the most important variable for perceiving acceptancewhile the lack of eye contact is considered the strongest sign of rejection.
Additionally, the analysis found that feeling ignored in a dialogue has a deeper emotional impact than simply disagreeing about ideas.
For experts, acceptance means presence, dedicated time and active listening. Roxana FantinResearcher and one of the paper’s authors, explained: “What has the greatest impact on others is not so much whether we agree or disagree with what they say, but rather whether they feel that we are there, present, available and really listening.”
The study, titled “An Approach to the Field: Acceptance/Rejection Feedback,” was developed by Roxana Fantin together with Maria Soledad Jouliá, Marina Lopez Saudibet And Agustina Zapiola. The sample included 143 graduate students from Austral University who spent a week freely recording the verbal and non-verbal signals of acceptance and rejection they perceived in their daily interactions.
The general results show a clear predominance of acceptance over rejection: 425 signs of acceptance versus 133 signs of rejection. Furthermore, a high level of consistency in terms used by students to describe their perceptions and a remarkable level of detail in the recordings were observed.
One of the main values of the study lies in the recognition of categories based on the participants’ self-perception. Fantin emphasized: “Normally we think that accepting others means agreeing with what they say, but in this exhibition we see that it is much more complex and silence plays a special role.” In this sense, research highlights that acceptance is not limited to the meeting of ideas, but encompasses a deeper dimension in which the body and attitude play a central role.
In addition to an attentive look, the key factors that increase the perception of acceptance include a relaxed posture, a slow tone of voice, respectful silence and the time you have for the other person. Fantin addressed this aspect by saying: “From this perspective, acceptance means, first of all, remaining in dialogue, and the opposite is perceived through micro-movements as a ‘desire to escape’.” Real presence and a willingness to listen become the pillars of interpersonal acceptance.
This is shown by the quantitative analysis of the study 50% of acceptance records are related to attention skillswhile a 30% refers to the time available during the interaction. On the contrary, rejection is usually expressed through interruptions, a restless body, body stiffness, a sharp tone of voice, monosyllabic words and a lack of prioritization of the dialogue. Fantin emphasized: “The recorded feedback suggests that the feeling of being ignored in dialogue trumps disagreement as a sign of rejection.”
From a theoretical point of view, research is part of the perspective of Emmanuel Levinaswho claims that acceptance implies to receive the person as a whole, beyond agreement or disagreement with his ideas, in an affective, spiritual and precognitive dimension. Fantin emphasized: “Acceptance is not just a rational act. It is also emotional, physical and even spiritual. And that is clearly reflected in the results we have achieved.”
A relevant aspect that emerges from the work is that experiences of acceptance and rejection are not perceived through a single isolated gesture, but through the combination of several interdependent manifestations, both verbal and non-verbal. Fantin added: “It is not a single signal that determines whether someone feels accepted, but a network of gestures, silences, looks and sounds that are articulated in the exchange.”
The research does not attempt to generalize the results, but suggests asking new questions about how acceptance is built in dialogue, what the relationship is between attention and approval, and the extent to which these perceptions depend on the context and subjectivity of each person.
About The Author
