SEX DIFFERENCES IN POWER CUES

Since the 1970s, scholars have used a power or dominance framework to ex- plain sex differences in nonverbal communication. In her famous book, Body Politics, Henley (1977) proposed that women’s nonverbal behavior is characterized by submissiveness, whereas men’s nonverbal behavior is characterized by dominance (see also Henley, 1995, 2001). Thus, sex differ- ences in nonverbal communication reflect a power dimension, with behav- ior between men and women paralleling that between superiors and subor- dinates. According to this perspective, women are also more likely to be nonverbally sensitive because having less social power necessitates devel- oping survival skills related to listening and becoming affiliated with others (LaFrance & Henley, 1994; Henley & Kramarae, 1991). Other scholars have attributed sex differences in communication, including nonverbal behavior, to power. For example, in a commentary based on debate between Julia Wood and Kathryn Dindia (1998), Wood remarked that “Many, if not most, differences between the sexes reflect women’s and men’s unequal social power and the disparate behavior and attitudinal tendencies their respec- tive degrees of power promote” (p. 21). Henley’s theoretical position, which has been labeled the subordination hypothesis, is supported by empirical studies showing that men talk more often and in louder voices (e.g., Kimble & Musgrove, 1988), display more visual dominance, interrupt more, and ini- tiate touch more often than women (see Burgoon, 1994; Henley, 1977, 1995). Studies have also shown that women smile more (Hall, 1984, 1998), are more facially and vocally expressive, let people move closer to them, and take up less physical space then men (Burgoon, 1994; Henley, 1977, 1995).

Of course, the behaviors listed above are not always interpreted as dom- inant or submissive. Burgoon (1994) argued that some behaviors labeled submissive, such as smiling and vocal expressiveness, may reflect friendli- ness or even dynamism more than submission (see also Hall, 1998). Bur- goon and her colleagues have also shown that expressive, friendly behav- iors are influential and may represent a form of socially skilled dominant behavior (e.g., Burgoon & Bacue, 2003). Because women are sometimes per- ceived to have more referent power than men (Carli, 1999), using friendly, expressive nonverbal behavior may actually be an effective strategy when

women seek to gain power and influence others. In contrast, because men are often perceived as having more expert and legitimate power than women (Carli, 1999), dominant behaviors such as interruptions and in- creased talk time might be more effective and appropriate for males. In- deed, Carli found that men were more successful than women when they used influence strategies based on competence or authority. Women also use more indirect, unilateral techniques such as being ingratiating or charming to gain compliance, whereas men tend to use more direct tech- niques (Falbo & Peplau, 1980), as illustrated by David and Tina at the begin- ning of this chapter. Imagine, however, if David was the one who used smil- ing and touch while Tina stood up and interrupted him. Could these behavioral displays be effective? Research by Dunbar and Burgoon (2005) suggests that behaviors which contradict gender stereotypes are some- times perceived as dominant. Specifically, they found that men were rated as more dominant when they were facially pleasant and expressive, where- as women were rated as more dominant when they were less facially pleas- ant and expressive.

Because men and women use different power bases and influence strate- gies, the subordination hypothesis may not capture all the nuances in- volved in a dyadic struggle for power. Like Burgoon (1994), others have questioned the comprehensiveness of the subordination hypothesis expla- nation for sex differences by charging that so-called dominant or submis- sive nonverbal behaviors can be interpreted differently depending on the context. For example, Halberstadt and Saitta (1987) found that smiling was interpreted in a variety of ways, including as a friendly or submissive ex- pression, whereas head canting (i.e., tilting the head to one side) was actu- ally interpreted as dominant rather than submissive as previously thought. Halberstadt and Saitta also demonstrated that sex differences in certain submissive behaviors are small. In their study of over 1,200 people in natu- ral settings such as shopping malls, parks, and airports, they found that men and women were more similar than different when it came to display- ing nonverbal signs of submission (e.g., smiling, head cants, and posing with weight shifted to one side). Other scholars have criticized Henley’s subordination hypothesis by showing that personality (e.g., Tucker & Fried- man, 1993) is a better predictor of individual differences in nonverbal be- havior than sex or by arguing that equating power and gender is an overly simplistic explanation for sex differences in nonverbal behavior (Hall & Halberstadt, 1997).

In addition, although empirical evidence suggests that power may in- deed underlie some sex differences in nonverbal behavior, the inconsis- tency found across studies suggests that power only provides a partial ex- planation. For example, empirical support for sex differences in dominant behaviors related to interactional control is mixed. In an analysis of conver-

sations between heterosexual couples, Fishman (1978) found that men talked more and were more in control of the topics that couples discussed compared to women. In contrast, women used more vocal backchannelling (such as saying “uh-huh”) and asked more questions that were of interest to their partners. Other researchers have also shown that men talk more than women (e.g., Kimble & Musgrove, 1988; Woods, 1988). However, DeFrancisco (1990, 1991) found that women talked more than men and that there were no sex differences in backchannelling. In contrast to previous studies, Robey, Canary, and Burggraf (1998) found no significant differences between husbands and wives in talk time, but found husbands use signifi- cantly more backchannelling than wives. Research on interruptions has been similarly inconsistent, with some studies showing men to interrupt more than women (e.g., Hall, 1984; Woods, 1988), and other studies showing no difference (e.g., Dindia, 1987), even when the type of interruption (con- firming, disconfirming, or rejecting) was considered (Robey et al., 1998).

To help explain this inconsistency, scholars have pointed out that sex dif- ferences in dominant communication are less likely when people have equal status or are in equalitarian relationships. Moreover, sex differences may vanish or reverse when a woman is in a more powerful position than a man. This reasoning suggests that power, status, or social role are better predic- tors of individual differences in dominant communication than sex or gender. This logic is reflected in social role theory (Eagley, 1983; 1987; Eagley & Wood, 1982), which helps explain sex differences that are based on tradi- tional power differentials between men and women within a given culture, and also explains why exceptions to the pattern of male dominance occur.

According to social role theory, men and women are socialized to fulfill different social roles, and thus are expected to possess and hone commu- nication skills that help them fulfill those goals (e.g., Eagley, 1983). Boys are taught to be more agentic and instrumental. They are also assigned to higher status roles and are expected to be more competent than women in arenas requiring competence and expertise. Girls, on the other hand, are taught to be more affiliative and expressive, and are expected to be more nurturing and relationally oriented (e.g., Brody, 1985; Eagley, 1983). According to social role theory, these norms and expectations create self- fulfilling prophecies, with men learning to be more dominant than women. Of course, as gender roles change, so too will the expectations and com- munication patterns change in differentiating the sexes. Social role theory privileges status or position over gender when predicting individual dif- ferences in dominant behavior. Thus, if a woman is in a more powerful po- sition, she would be likely to exhibit more dominant communication than a man in a lower position (although men would still be predicted to dis- play more dominance when interacting with a woman of equal power due to differential socialization).

A series of studies by Sagrestano and her colleagues tested the proposi- tion that status or power is more closely related to dominance than gender. In the first of these studies (Sagrestano, 1992), people imagined themselves interacting with someone of higher, lower, or equal power. Sex was varied so that some people imagined interacting with a member of the same sex and others imagined interacting with a member of the opposite sex. Men and women did not vary in their likelihood of using various influence strate- gies. However, people were most likely to report using direct strategies when they were in the high power position, and most likely to report using bilaterial strategies when power was equal. Thus, social role (or power po- sition) was more important than sex when predicting influence strategies. In a second experimental study, Sagrestano (1995) matched people who dis- agreed on issues and then manipulated the level of expertise power by giv- ing one participant more information on the issue than the other. She again found that influence strategies varied as a function of a person’s power po- sition rather than a person’s sex (as reported in Sagrestano, Heavey, & Christensen, 1998). Finally, Sagrestano, Christensen, and Heavey (1998) had married couples discuss two issues relevant to their relationships—one is- sue involved the wife wanting to change the husband’s behavior, while the other issue involved the husband wanting to change the wife’s behavior. They found that social role (operationalized as whether the person was try- ing to influence the spouse or to resist being influenced) was related to spe- cific influence strategies, such as giving explanations or asking questions, but sex was not.

Sex differences in power strategies also fail to emerge in studies on gay male and lesbian relationships. For example, Fablo and Peplau (1980) dem- onstrated that although men and women in heterosexual relationships used somewhat different power strategies (with men using more direct, verbal tactics and women using more indirect, nonverbal tactics), lesbians and gay men did not differ in their use of power strategies. Moreover, across both gay and straight relationships, the more powerful partner used more direct strategies than the less powerful person. Similarly, scholars have demon- strated that the partner higher in relative power tends to use more inter- ruptions (Kollock et al., 1985) as well as more autocratic influence strategies (Howard et al., 1986), regardless of the couples’ sexual orientation.

The work comparing gay and straight relationships, combined with Sag- restano’s studies, show that influence strategies vary more as a function of power position than sex. Future studies need to determine whether this finding extends to nonverbal behaviors related to dominance and influence, especially since Woods (1988) found that men used more dominant behav- ior than women (in terms of talk time and interruptions) regardless of whether they were in a high or low power position. Hall and Friedman (1999) also examined the joint effects of status and gender on dominant be-

havior. They had organizational members who varied in status interact with one another. Their data failed to support Henley’s prediction that power explains sex differences in nonverbal behavior. “Indeed, gender and status differences did not parallel each other, and gender differences be- came more pronounced when status differences were controlled” (Hall & Friedman, 1999, p. 1082). These results suggest that some sex differences in dominant behavior are not rooted in power or status differentials. Hall and Friedman called for more research separating gender and status to deter- mine whether these variables have independent effects on dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior.

Tactile behavior provides a final example of the complexities of the gen- der–power relationship. Henley (1977) argued that initiating touch, which is perceived as a power move, is the prerogative of men rather than women. Although several studies have shown that men initiate touch more than women in formal, public settings (e.g., Henley, 1973; Major, Schmidlin, & Wil- liams, 1990), this sex difference seems to vanish or reverse in intimate, pri- vate settings (Major, Schmidlin, & Williams, 1990; Stier & Hall, 1984). More- over, factors such as age and relationship stage appear to moderate the relationship between gender and touch. Several studies have demonstrated that among younger couples or those in the beginning stages of relation- ship development, the man is more likely to initiate touch. Among older couples and those who are in stable or married relationships, the woman is more likely to initiate touch (Guerrero & Andersen, 1994; Hall & Veccia, 1990; Willis & Briggs, 1992; Willis & Dodds, 1998). These findings are consis- tent with social role theory in that men are socialized to be proactive when it comes to initiating romantic relationships, whereas women are socialized to maintain intimacy once relationships have developed.