is continuously under the control of the sensory input … [and] … the outcomes of

actions are continuously matched against some criterion of achievement or degree

of approach to a goal.
(Argyle & Kendon, 1967, p. 56)

While recognising some of the important differences between motor and social
performance, they argued that this definition could be applied in large part to the study
of social skill.
The intervening decades since the publication of Argyle and Kendon’s paper have
witnessed an explosion of interest in the nature, function, delineation, and content of
socially skilled performance. However, quite often researchers and theorists in this area
have been working in differing contexts, with little cross-fertilisation between those
involved in clinical, professional and developmental settings. The result has been a
plethora of different approaches to the analysis and evaluation of skill. Therefore, it is
useful to examine the extant degree of consensus as to what exactly is meant by the term
‘social skill’.
In one sense, this is a term that is widely employed and generally comprehended, since it has
already been used in this chapter and presumably understood by the reader. The terms
‘communication skill’, ‘social skill’, and ‘interpersonal skill’ have entered the lexicon of
everyday use. For example, many job adverts stipulate that applicants should have high
levels of social, or communication, skill. In this global sense, social skills can be defined as
the skills employed when communicating at an interpersonal level with other people. In
descriptive terms, a di