TALLER DE MELCOR: REGENERACIÓN DEL CROMOSOMA

As Dunbar’s research suggests, a variety of nonverbal cues correlate with power and dominance (see Table 6.1 for an overview). Much of the re- search on the nonverbal correlates of power has focused on differences be- tween men’s and women’s behavior (e.g., Henley, 1977, 1995) or on commu- nication within organizations or groups (e.g., Andersen & Bowman, 1999; Remland, 1981, 1982). In this section, we discuss nonverbal behaviors that

Power

Larger, more private spaces Central positioning

Receiving more eye contact and attention

Visual dominance (looking at others more when speaking than listening) Height, elevated positions and spaces

Prerogative to violate expectations related to haptics, chronemics, and dress

Prerogative to control interaction through extended talk time, interruptions, and leave-taking

Dominance Through Social Skill Influence

Direct gaze

Positive forms of touch Close distances

Professional/nice appearance Kinesic and vocalic expressiveness Kinesic and vocalic pleasantness

Poise and Self-Assurance

Asymmetrical leg and arm positions Sideways leaning

Open arms and body position Kinesic expressiveness

Low amount of swiveling, adaptors, and random movement Fluent speech

Facial pleasantness/smiling Eye contact

Moderately fast and loud voice Increased talk time

Conversational Control

Attention-getting techniques (e.g., demure eye contact, bumping into someone) Fluent speech with unsmooth turn-switching and interruptions

Backchannelling and nodding Increased talk time

Eye contact (especially when speaking)

Rejection and leave-taking behaviors (e.g., ignoring someone, increasing distance)

Panache or Dynamism

Close distancing

Gaze and direct body orientation Forward lean

Vocal and kinesic expressiveness Faster, louder speech

(Continued)

are generally thought to correlate with perceptions of power. Although many of the studies examining nonverbal power come from an organiza- tional perspective, the principles derived from this literature have implica- tions for close relationships. After reviewing these principles, we turn to a discussion of sex differences in power displays.

The Principle of Space and Privacy

Powerful people are given access to more space and larger, more private territories (Dean, Willis, & Hewitt, 1975; Henley, 1995; Remland, 1981; Sund- strom & Altman, 1976), and they also have more control of their personal space (Henley, 2001). In organizations, powerful individuals have the largest and most private offices. In fact, they are often separated from other em- ployees by multiple doors as well as a secretary who acts as a gatekeeper (Andersen & Bowman, 1999). The principle of space also relates to the way rooms are used and artifacts are placed within a household. Relational part- ners who live together sometimes have power struggles over space and pri- vacy. Indeed, deciding who gets the largest closet and whose preferred art- work hangs in the family room are not only sources of conflict for many couples, but can also be manifestations of an underlying power struggle. People use a variety of nonverbal cues to help them create and maintain privacy, including manipulating the environment (e.g., closing a door), re- ducing eye contact, increasing conversational distance, and looking disin- terested. When people notice and respect these sometimes subtle cues, they are showing respect and possibly deference to someone.

The Principle of Centrality and Visual Dominance

Powerful people also occupy more central positions, such as the head of a table, where visual access to a group is maximized (Sommer, 1971; Strodt- beck & Hook, 1961). Perhaps in part because they are located in central po-

TABLE 6.1

(Continued) Dominance Through Intimidation/Threat

Direct stare Rolling eyes

Steady gaze (not breaking eye contact first) Loud voice

Silence/silent treatment Spatial violations

Chronemic violations and regulation of activity

Obsessive relational intrusion behaviors (e.g., property damage, unwanted notes) Violence

sitions, powerful people receive more eye contact than others in a group, especially when they are speaking. This relates to Exline, Ellyson, and Long’s (1975) visual dominance ratio. According to Exline and colleagues, powerful people look more at others when speaking than when listening. Conversely, submissive individuals look more when they are listening (as a sign of attention and respect) than when they are speaking. Through cen- tral positioning at a table or in a room, powerful individuals can maximize the amount of control they have. They can look around to ensure that ev- eryone is listening when they are speaking, and they can regulate conversa- tion more easily. The visual dominance ratio may also play an important role within interpersonal interaction. In one study, Schell and Weisfeld (1999) found that couples were more satisfied following a decision-making task when the husband used high levels of visual dominance. In this study, the actual outcome of the process did not seem to be as important as the nonverbal cues that accompanied the process. In another study, Dunbar and Burgoon (2005) demonstrated that visual dominance was correlated with ratings of dominance for both men and women.

The Principle of Elevation

Just as placement and position can convey power, so too can height or ver- tical space. This principle is readily observable in business, legal, and edu- cational settings. Presidents of corporations often have offices on the top floor of high-rise buildings, judges often sit on benches that rise above courtrooms, and professors often stand to lecture while their students are seated. Behaviors that increase height differentials can also convey power. For example, powerful people are sometimes described as “standing tall” or “standing head-and-shoulders above the crowd.” Standing over an individ- ual and looking down at her or him is generally regarded as a power move (Henley, 1977; Remland, 1982), so in the scenario at the beginning of this chapter, it is likely that Tina would interpret David’s switch to standing po- sition as a dominance move. In fact, Schwartz, Tesser, and Powell (1982) found that elevation accounted for nearly two thirds of the variance in dom- inance ratings of people in pictures; people who were standing were rated as more dominant than those who were sitting. It follows then that tall peo- ple would be seen as more powerful than short people (Henley, 1977). Men, in particular, seem to be regarded more favorably and as more dominant when they are tall (Roberts & Herman, 1986). Mehrabrian (1972) argued that height and strength evolved as valued qualities in friends as well as mates, because such characteristics gave people a survival advantage. Indeed, het- erosexual women tend to be attracted to stronger, taller, and more domi- nant men (Jackson & Ervin, 1992; Sadalla, Kenrick & Vershure, 1987; Pierce,

1996), which gives taller men an advantage over their shorter, less domi- nant-looking counterparts in the dating marketplace.

The Principle of Prerogative

When an individual is a subordinate in an organization or in the beginning stages of a relationship, it is advisable to use nonverbal communication that conforms to social norms. However, as people obtain higher positions in organizations or become closer relational partners, they have more of a prerogative to break the norms and engage in more powerful or more idio- syncratic behavior. For instance, powerful individuals are more likely to ini- tiate touch, show up late, dress informally, and interrupt others (Henley, 2001). Moreover, powerful individuals, unlike subordinates, can engage in these behaviors without censure. A subordinate who is interacting with a powerful person is likely to exhibit formal, polite, and possibly tense behav- ior (Henley, 2001), as well as to have to wait for the powerful person’s ar- rival. Within relationships, partners gain a certain degree of power and free- dom over time; they do not need to dress up for each other as much or worry if they are a few minutes late for a date once the relationship has be- come committed. However, the more powerful relational partner, who might well be less emotionally involved, is likely to break rules and norms more frequently (Huston, 1983). He or she might forget to call the partner back, arrive very late for an important date, or interrupt the partner fre- quently during a conflict episode. As Huston (1983) suggested, the person in the less powerful position is usually careful not to offend the more powerful person. This may lead to a chilling effect, with the less powerful person hes- itant to discuss relational problems or assert her or himself (Dunbar, 2003; see also Cloven & Roloff, 1993; Roloff & Cloven, 1990).

The Principle of Interactional Control

Related to the idea of having the prerogative to break social norms by en- gaging in behaviors such as interrupting others, powerful people have the ability to control interaction. As Cappella (1985) said, “Power can be achieved in deliberative contexts by controlling one’s own and others’ abil- ity to present information” (p. 70). Powerful people often control the con- versational floor by initiating and changing topics (Wiemann, 1985), as well as talking and interrupting more (Brandt, 1980; Dunbar & Burgoon, in press; Kollock et al., 1985; Lamb, 1981; Leffler, Gillespie, & Conaty, 1982). In turn, people who use these behaviors are rated as more dominant or as better leaders (Kleinke, Lenga, Tully, Meeker, & Staneski, 1976; Sorrentino & Boutillier, 1975; Stang, 1973), unless they hold the floor so much that people see them as overly controlling (Daly, McCroskey, & Richmond, 1977). Re-

search on group interaction suggests that people who speak more than 60% of the time tend to be viewed as overbearing rather than as exerting an ap- propriate level of power (Cappella, 1985). However, to our knowledge there has not been a similar estimate for appropriate talk time in dyadic contexts. We would imagine, however, that there is a fine line between managing the floor appropriately and being perceived as too controlling.