INTERPERSONAL DOMINANCE THROUGH INTIMIDATION OR THREAT

In contrast to using socially skilled behaviors such as poise or panache to influence others, people sometimes threaten and intimidate partners in an attempt to gain or maintain interpersonal control. Although such coercive behaviors can be effective in the short term, research suggests that they lead to relational problems in the long run (e.g., Frieze & McHugh, 1992; Gray-Little & Burks, 1983). For example, in a study of Spanish couples, dis- tressed couples used more domineering one-up messages and displayed more negative affect than nondistressed couples (Escudero, Rogers, & Gutierrez, 1997). Research also suggests that people may be more likely to resort to coercive, threatening, or violent strategies when they do not pos- sess the ability to achieve dominance using more constructive behaviors (Christopher & Lloyd, 2001; Infante, Chandler, & Rudd, 1989). Next, we dis- cuss some of the key nonverbal behaviors used to threaten or intimidate a partner as a means of achieving power or influence.

Eye Behavior

At many zoos there are signs warning patrons not to make direct eye contact with the gorillas. These primates interpret direct stares as a threat and react with hostility. Indeed, the threatening stare is a primary dominance display that cuts across varies species and is universally understood by humans (Dovidio & Ellyson, 1985). Powerful people are more likely to engage in unwa- vering, direct looks or stares, and to break eye contact first (Exline et al., 1975). Steady, extended gaze is generally perceived as dominant and threat- ening, especially when used by a high status or powerful person (Burgoon, Buller, & Hale, 1984; Ellsworth, Carlsmith, & Henson, 1972). Eye behavior is also likely to be associated with dominance attempts in close relationships, with direct stares or rolling eyes showing contempt or disgust (Gottman, 1994).

Vocalic Behavior

Two seemingly opposite types of vocalic behavior can be intimidating—vol- ume and silence. People who speak in loud, moderately rapid, and fluent voices are perceived as dominant, confident, and competent (Apple,

Streeter, & Krauss, 1979; Buller & Aune, 1988, 1992). When voices become es- pecially loud, they are often heard as intimidating as well as dominant (Mehrabian, 1972; Scheflen, 1972), particularly when they convey anger. Thus, some researchers have cautioned that although loud voices send messages of power and dominance, they can also show disrespect and inconsideration (Remland, 1982). On the other side of the vocalic spectrum, silence can sometimes be intimidating and threatening. The ultimate forms of silence in relationships—such as failing to acknowledge a relational part- ner’s presence, giving a partner the silent treatment, failing to respond to a partner’s question, or ignoring someone’s suggestions or requests—are of- ten perceived as aggressive and hurtful. In the sphere of organizational power, Bruneau (1973) discussed silence as a potent aggravator of frustra- tion, with subordinates feeling disenfranchised and unimportant when their requests and suggestions are followed by silence. Similarly, in relationships silence can lead to frustration and feelings of disrespect and neglect.

Spatial and Chronemic Violations

Relational partners can also intimidate one another by engaging in spatial or chronemic violations. Mehrabian (1981) noted that people display domi- nance when they approach others’ territory in a rapid and deliberate fash- ion or when they enter people’s territories uninvited. In contrast, people display submission when they hesitantly approach others. Getting in a part- ner’s face, going through a partner’s belongings without permission, and re- peatedly entering a room when a partner wants to be alone can all function to threaten or intimidate someone. Similarly, people can use chronemic vio- lations to gain control. For example, one common power struggle in rela- tionships occurs over the television and the remote control, with partners trying to control who watches what when (Walker, 1996). Interrupting a partner who is on the Internet or working (e.g., “David, I need you to get off the computer now so I can check the stock report”) also constitutes a form of chronemic violation because it challenges a person’s control of their own time and activity. People who are possessive also try to control their part- ner’s time and activities, sometimes by restricting their access to rivals or spending extra time with them (Buss, 1988; Pinto & Hollandsworth, 1984).

Obsessive Relational Intrusion

Cupach and Spitzberg (1998) identified a set of behaviors labeled obsessive relational intrusion that are related to trying to control a former or wished- for partner through behaviors such as space and chronemic violations. Ac- cording to this line of research, people engage in obsessive relational intru- sion behaviors when they want to establish or re-establish a relationship

with someone who is not interested in them. The most common situations involving obsessive relational intrusion involve unrequited love or the quest to get back together with a former partner. Several of the obsessive relational intrusion behaviors identified by Cupach and Spitzberg (1998) in- volve nonverbal behavior. For example, in a study of undergraduate victims of obsessive relational intrusion, 62% of respondents could recall at least one time when a person watched or stared at them from a distance (Cupach & Spitzberg, 1998). Other instances of nonverbally based obsessive relational intrusion behaviors included: having someone drive by one’s home or place of work (57%); being spied on by third parties (55%); receiv- ing unwanted notes, cards, or letters (45%); having someone go through one’s private things (34%); being physically shoved, slapped, or hit (32%); having one’s property damaged (26%); being forced to engage in unwanted sex (16%); and having one’s home or apartment broken into (8%). Clearly, some of these behaviors are both threatening and illegal. From a power and dominance perspective, obsessive relational intrusion behaviors are espe- cially interesting because the person using these behaviors is clearly in a low power position relative to the desired partner. As the principle of least interest specifies, this person loves more, which puts her or him in the weaker position. As a way of trying to gain control, some individuals in this position may resort to threatening tactics such as obsessive relational in- trusion.

Violence

Violence is one form of obsessive relational intrusion. Unfortunately, vio- lence is used in intact relationships as well as by those seeking to connect or reconnect with someone. Marshall (1994) defined violence as physically forceful acts that can vary in intensity from relatively mild (e.g., pulling someone’s arm a little roughly or throwing an object) to extreme (e.g., beat- ing up or killing someone). According to Marshall’s careful review of litera- ture, most violence in relationships is “performed at a low or moderate level of intensity and severity,” but this fact should not in anyway diminish the damaging physical or psychological effects that violence has on couples (p. 284).

Violent communication is discussed in more detail in chapter 8. For now, however, it is important to mention that violent behavior can have a pro- found influence on the power dynamics of a relationship. People who use violence may be attempting to gain power and control their partners, and those who are the recipients of violence may indeed feel powerless and en- trapped in an unhealthy relationship (Christopher & Lloyd, 2000; Marshall, 1994). According to Marshall’s research, some of the more common violent behaviors used in relationships by men include: grabbing the partner sud-

denly or forcefully; holding or pinning down the partner; shaking or han- dling the partner roughly; and pushing or shoving the partner. The most common violent behaviors used by women are: pushing or shoving the partner; slapping the partner with the palm of the hand; grabbing the part- ner suddenly or forcefully; and scratching the partner. These tactile behav- iors are undoubtedly among the most threatening and destructive nonver- bal behaviors experienced in close relationships. It is doubtful, however, whether such behavior constitutes a form of long-term interpersonal domi- nance since a submissive response to violence is likely based on coercion rather than on enduring forms of social influence.

SUMMARY

Power and dominance are key characteristics of close relationships. Power generally refers to a person’s ability to influence others and to resist oth- ers’ persuasive attempts. Interpersonal dominance refers to communica- tion strategies that people use successfully to gain or express power. Peo- ple can communicate dominance through socially skilled behavior or through intimidation and threat. Within relationships, partners are often somewhat unequal in power. At this point, the jury is still out regarding the association between relative power and dominant communication. Some studies (e.g., Kollock et al., 1985) have demonstrated that the person in the power position uses more dominant communication whereas other studies (e.g., Dunbar, 2003) have shown that the person with less power uses the most dominance. Other studies have shown that people in egalitarian rela- tionships use either more (Felmlee, 1994) or less (Aida & Falbo, 1991) domi- nant behavior than partners in non-equal relationships. In advancing dyadic power theory, Dunbar (2003, 2004; Dunbar & Burgoon, 2005) sug- gested that it may be fruitful to examine curvilinear effects related to power differentials. She theorized that people who are somewhat high or low in relative power may use the most dominant behavior, while those who are very high in relative power behavior may not need to show much domi- nance, and those who are very low in relative power may accommodate and submit. This prediction, along with the discovery of nonverbal behav- iors associated with different levels of relative power, awaits further test- ing.

Research has uncovered a variety of nonverbal behaviors associated with power, including larger and more private spaces, central positions, vi- sual dominance, elevation, and the prerogative to break nonverbal norms and control interaction. Some research suggests that sex differences in non- verbal communication can be (at least partially) explained by power. Con- sistent with Henley’s (1977, 1995) subordination hypothesis, men have been

shown to engage in certain dominant behavior more than women. However, Hall and her colleagues have criticized the subordination hypothesis for be- ing overly simplistic in equating women’s behavior with submissiveness and men’s behavior with dominance (e.g., Hall & Friedman, 1999; Hall & Halberstadt, 1997). Indeed, a number of studies have shown that power or position is a better predictor of dominance than is gender (e.g., Sagrestano, 1992).

Interpersonal dominance is also associated with a wide array of behav- iors. Some of these behaviors reflect social skill, such as being able to influ- ence others, project a poised and confident image, control the conversa- tional floor, and exhibit dynamism. Partners who engage in these socially skilled dominance behaviors are likely to gain or maintain power, while keeping their relationships satisfying. Furthermore, partners who use domi- nant behaviors reflecting social skill may be better able to solve relational problems and manage disputes (see also chap. 8, this volume). Other domi- nance behaviors are based on coercion, threat, or intimidation. These be- haviors include eye behavior (e.g., direct stare, rolling eyes), a loud voice, silence, spatial or chronemic violations, certain obsessive relational intru- sion behaviors, and violence. People may be most likely to engage in these types of behaviors when they are in a low power position, or when they do not possess the skill to influence the partner using nonthreatening tactics. Although threat and intimidation may sometimes be successful in the short term, over the long haul research suggests that such behavior has a detri- mental effect on relationships.

Sensing David’s agitation, Tina acquiesces and decides that the Grand Canyon wouldn’t be so bad after all. She and David fly to Flagstaff and make the drive north to a rustic, romantic lodge near the south rim of the Canyon, where they have reserved a room. At first, being away from work and taking in the natural beauty of the area make Tina and David feel re- laxed and refreshed. During breakfast on their third full day there, how- ever, an attractive young woman approaches their table and David im- mediately rises to give her a hug. Although he says things like “what a surprise to see you!” Tina notices that he seems nervous and awkward— and definitely not surprised. When David introduces his friend Ann to Tina, Tina vaguely remembers David mentioning on one of their early dates that he had previously been in a serious relationship with someone named Ann. She begins to have many suspicious thoughts: Is this the same Ann that David used to date? If so, what is she doing here? Did Da- vid know she was going to be here? Is that why he pushed so hard for us to come to the Grand Canyon? Almost immediately, her previous sense of calm and relaxation is replaced with the sinking feeling that David was not being completely honest with her.

Personal relationships are typically founded on trust and a presumption of honesty. For various reasons, however, people opt to be less than com- pletely honest in their relational interactions. Whether it be to hide infidel- ity or other transgressions, to mask one’s emotions, to preserve a surprise, or simply to spare another’s feelings, deceptive acts are common in rela- tional communication. In this chapter, we discuss what deception is and the forms it can take in personal relationships. We then discuss the process of

7