Reducing Sex Differences in Visual Displays of Dominance

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated, consistent with expectation states theory, that men display greater power visually on masculine and non-gender-linked tasks than women; whereas women exhibit more power visually on feminine tasks than men. Our study investigated more specifically the role that actual knowledge plays in moderating sex differences in visual displays of power on gender-linked tasks. Mixed-sex dyads discussed two masculine, two feminine, and two non-gender-linked tasks. For one set of masculine, feminine, and non-gender-linked tasks, both dyad members received training related to the tasks; for the other set of tasks, subjects received no special training. The results for the tasks on which subjects did not receive training generally replicated the earlier findings. When sex differences in task familiarity were substantially reduced by training, however, sex differences in visual displays of power were eliminated. These findings demonstrate the importance of actual knowledge as a moderator of power-related visual behavior

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bales, R. (1950). Interaction process analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bem, S. L. , & Bem, D. L. (1970). Case study of a non-conscious ideology: Training the woman to know her place. In D. J. Bem (Ed.), Beliefs, attitudes, and human affairs (pp. 80-99). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Berger, J. , Wagner, D. G. , & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1985). Introduction: Expectation states theory. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch, Jr. (Eds.), Status, rewards, and influence (pp. 1-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Capella, J. N. (1985). Controlling the floor in conversation. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 69-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dovidio, J. F. , Brown, C. E. , Helitman, K. , Ellyson, S. L. , & Keating, C. F. (1988). Power displays between women and men in discussions of gender linked tasks: A multichannel study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 580-587.

Dovidio, J. F. , & Ellyson, S. L. (1982). Decoding visual dominance: Attributions of power based on the relative percentages of looking while speaking and looking while listening. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 106-113.

Dovidio, J. F. , & Ellyson, S. L. (1985). Patterns of visual dominance behavior in humans. In S. L. Ellvson & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior (pp. 129-149). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Dovidio, J. F. , Ellyson, S. L. , Keating, C. F. , Heltman, K. , & Brown, C. E. (1988). The relationship of social power to visual displays of dominance between men and women. Journal of Personalitv and Social Psychology, 54, 233-242.

Driskell, J. E. , & Mullen, B. (1989). Status, expectations, and behavior: A meta-analytic review and test of the theory. Manuscript submitted for publication.

10.

Eagly, A. H. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 38, 971-981.

11.

Ellyson, S. L. , & Dovidio, J. F. (1985). Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior: Basic concepts and issues. In S. L. Ellyson & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior (pp. 1-27). New York: Springer-Verlag.

12.

Ellyson, S. L. , Dovidio, J. F. , Corson, R. L. , & Vinicur, D. L. (1980). Visual dominance behavior in female dyads: Situational and personality factors. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 328-336.

13.

Exline, R. V. , Ellyson, S. L. , & Long, B. (1975). Visual behavior as an aspect of power role relationships. In P. Pliner , L. Krames , & T. Alloway (Eds.), Nonverbal communication of aggression (pp. 21-52). New York: Plenum.

14.

Hembroff, L. A. , & Myers, D. E. (1984). Status characteristics: Degrees of task relevance and the decision process. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 337-346.

15.

Kenny, D. A. , & Judd, C. M. (1986). Consequences of violating the independence assumption in analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 422-431.

16.

Linkey, H. E. , & Firestone, I. J. (1986, August). Dominance: Nonverbal behaviors, personality trait, and interaction outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

17.

Meeker, B. F. , & Weitzel-O'Neill, P. A. (1985). Sex role and interpersonal behavior in task-oriented groups. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch, Jr. (Eds.), Status, rewards, and influence (pp. 379-405). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

18.

Mitchell, G. , & Maple, T. L. (1985). Dominance in nonhuman primates. In S. L. Ellyson & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior (pp. 49-66). New York: Springer-Verlag.

19.

Ridgeway, C. L. , Berger, J. , & Smith, L. (1985). Nonverbal cues and status: An expectation states approach. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 955-978.

20.

Rosenthal, R. , & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

21.

Stein, R. T. , & Heller, T. (1979). An empirical analysis of the correlations between leadership status and participation rates reported in the literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1993-2002.

22.

Wood, W. , & Karten, S. J. (1986). Sex differences in interaction style as a product of perceived sex differences in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 341-347.