INTERPERSONAL DOMINANCE THROUGH SOCIAL SKILL

Power differentials, if any exist, are likely to be minimized when relational partners use dominant behaviors that reflect social skill rather than coer- cion or threat. In any relationship, partners have goals or desires that are sometimes at odds with each other, as illustrated in the situation involving Tina and David at the beginning of this chapter. If Tina and David can nego- tiate so that they can each fulfill some their vacation-related goals, they will be more likely to regard their interaction as satisfying and equitable. Thus, being able to influence others to achieve personal as well as relational goals is a critical skill. Given this reasoning, it is not surprising that Burgoon and Dunbar (2000) conceptualized interpersonal dominance as a pattern of behaviors that reflects communication competence. Many of the same be- haviors that have been classified as key components of communication competence—expressiveness, smooth interaction management, composure— are similar to those identified by Burgoon, Johnson et al. (1998) as reflective

of interpersonal dominance. Specifically, Burgoon, Johnson, and Koch con- ceptualized dominance as a multidimensional construct consisting of five interrelated dimensions: influence, poise, self-assurance, conversational control, and panache or dynamism. Next we discuss the nonverbal behav- iors associated with these dimensions.

Influence

Research suggests that people attempt to influence close relational partners, such as friends or family members, more than anyone else (e.g., Rule, Bisanz, & Kohn, 1985). Social influence involves changing someone’s thoughts, emo- tions, or behaviors, including persuading someone to comply with a request or agree to a decision (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1996). Sometimes social influence occurs due to the use of dominant communication. Although verbal communication is usually the primary channel of persuasion, research dem- onstrates that nonverbal channels play a complementary role in many situa- tions (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1996; Segrin, 1993).

One such situation involves trying to gain compliance with a request. Segrin (1993) conducted a meta-analysis to determine the strength and con- sistency of relationships between nonverbal behaviors and successful com- pliance-gaining. He found that targets were more likely to comply with re- quests when the persuader used direct gaze (average r = .23), positive and appropriate forms of touch (average r = .21), close distances (average r = .18), and more professional appearance (including nice dress and groom- ing, average r = .16). For distancing, Segrin noted that compliance seems to increase up to a point; if the persuader gets too close, however, and vio- lates spatial norms, then compliance appears to be less likely. For direct gaze, research suggests that eye contact while speaking (rather than listen- ing) is most effective (Linkey & Fireston, 1990), which comports with the vi- sual dominance ratio discussed earlier.

Although the research Segrin (1993) reviewed is based on interaction be- tween strangers or acquaintances, it seems likely that these same behav- iors would play a role in compliance gaining in close relationships. In fact, direct eye contact, touch, and close distancing are more likely to be appro- priate in the context of close relationships, perhaps leading partners to use such behaviors more liberally when trying to ingratiate themselves or oth- erwise seek compliance from one another. The threshold for close distanc- ing may vanish in close relationships, with partners able to step into one another’s personal space bubbles as a means of persuasion. Touch may also be used more extensively. For instance, Jones’s observational research uncovered a fairly common touch sequence that involves moving from af- fection to compliance, with relational partners using touch as an ingratiat- ing strategy to get someone to comply with a request (Jones, 1994; Jones &

Yarbrough, 1985). Tina engaged in this sequence with David; she touches his arm before and during her verbal attempt at compliance. Partners may also manipulate physical appearance as a way of reaching their goals. For example, Buss (1988) found that jealous women sometimes enhance their attractiveness as a mate retention strategy. It is interesting to note that at- tractive women have been found to comply to requests less often than un- attractive women, but to get others to comply to their requests more often (Adams & Read, 1983).

Several other behaviors are linked to social influence. Some studies show that people who are more kinesically and vocally expressive are rated as more influential (e.g., Burgoon, Birk, & Pfau, 1990). Liss, Walker, Hazelton, and Cupach (1993) showed that in interpersonal contexts, smiling was associated with more compliance. Together, these studies support the contention by Burgoon, Birk, and Pfau (1990) that nonverbal cues related to expressiveness and pleasantness lead to perceptions of increased liking, which then translate into more social influence. Likewise, research on vo- calic cues suggests that vocalic similarity leads to more liking and social at- traction, which in turn leads to more persuasion. In a series of studies, Bull- er and his colleagues (Buller & Aune, 1988, 1992; Buller, Le Poire, Aune, & Eloy, 1992) manipulated the extent to which confederates matched the vo- cal qualities of participants. Across these studies, confederates were more likely to elicit compliance when they sounded similar to participants. Par- ticipants also rated similar sounding confederates as more socially attrac- tive (Buller et al., 1992). In contrast, speaking rate was related to percep- tions of competence and overall dominance but not social attractiveness, with a moderately fast speaking rate associated with compliance (Buller et al., 1992).

Poise and Self-Assurance

Because the nonverbal behaviors judged to reflect poise (or composure) and self-assurance (or confidence) overlap to some extent, we discuss them together here. Individuals judged as dominant typically appear poised, re- laxed, and composed (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1996; Burgoon, Johnson, & Koch, 1998; Goffman, 1961; Weisfeld & Linkey, 1985). Poise and relaxation are communicated nonverbally through a set of behaviors that include asymmetrical leg and arm positions, sideways leaning, arm openness, open body position, expressive gestures, less swiveling, and less random leg and foot movement (Mehrabian, 1969; Mehrabian & Ksionzky, 1972). Greater fa- cial pleasantness, smiling, eye contact, and proximity can also send mes- sages of poise, relaxation, and composure (Burgoon, Buller, Hale, & de- Turck, 1984; Burgoon & Le Poire, 1999; Patterson, Jordan, Hogan, & Frerker, 1981). Within the context of romantic relationships, Dunbar and Burgoon

(2005) demonstrated that men were judged to be more dominant when they displayed facial pleasantness, body relaxation, and less disfluencies (i.e., speech disturbances other than interruptions). Women were also judged as more dominant by observers when their bodies looked relaxed, and interactional partners rated women as more dominant when they used fewer adaptors. In sum, nonverbal behaviors that combine to show open- ness, expressiveness, positive affect, and a lack of nervousness combine to communicate relaxation and poise.

Similarly, people are judged as more self-assured or confident when they are vocally fluent, speak in a loud and confident voice, utilize more talk time, have a relaxed, expansive body posture, display few adaptors, and show little random movement (although too still a body position can also reflect tenseness). Guerrero (1996; Guerrero & Jones, 2005) demonstrated that people with anxious (rather than self-confident or secure) attachment styles tend to be less conversationally smooth and composed during inter- actions with romantic partners. In a study that examined both self-reported dominance (in terms of a personality scale) and observer perceptions of dominance and ambition, Gifford (1994) determined that dominant/ambi- tious individuals tend to manipulate objects less, use more leg lean, and ex- tend their legs more. Observers were more likely to rate people as domi- nant and ambitious when they had their arms in a open position, extended their legs, and used purposeful gestures. In another study, individuals who were classified as assertive based on a personality test talked louder than those who were classified as nonassertive (Kimble & Musgrove, 1988), and several studies have shown that moderately fast and loud voices sound confident because the speaker seems to know what he or she is talking about with hesitating or having to think (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1996). Sorrentino and Boutellier (1975) found talk time to be positively associated with how confident, influential, and competent a person was rated.

Dominance cues related to relaxation and confidence also appear to play a role in the attraction process. In a study based on a social evolutionary framework, Sadalla et al. (1987) tested the prediction that women would be more attracted to dominant than nondominant men. To manipulate domi- nance they had men take seats close to a woman and then interact with one another. The men in the dominant condition sat in very relaxed body posi- tions and talked loudly, quickly, and clearly to one another. The men in the nondominant condition sat up straight and talked quietly to one another. As predicted, women were more attracted to the men who exhibited non- verbal cues related to dominance.

Of course, a person can go overboard when communicating relaxation or confidence. Norton’s (1983) findings regarding effective communication styles imply that relaxation helps distinguish dominant behavior that is so- cially skilled from dominant behavior that is intimidating or authoritarian

(see also Burgoon & Bacue, 2003). So a moderately high level of relaxation may be essential. However, too much relaxation can signal boredom or dis- interest, which could backfire within a relational context. The level of relax- ation that is effective may also vary based on a person’s relative power within a relationship. Burgoon and Bacue (2003) argued that “extremes in postural relaxation function as negative expectancy violations and there- fore would presumably constitute unskillful performances” (p. 201). They further suggested that too much relaxation is likely more detrimental for a person of relatively low power, who needs to be engaged to be effective. Conversely, too little relaxation may be more detrimental for the person in the higher power position who should appear confident (rather than tense or worried) about the outcome of an interaction. Similarly, as studies on talk time and vocal forcefulness suggest, too much confidence may come across as controlling or smug, which could lead to negative individual and relational outcomes (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1996).

Conversational Control

As noted previously, the ability to begin, manage, and end interaction is re- lated to power. The enactment of this ability constitutes a form of domi- nance (Burgoon, Johnson, & Koch, 1998). Cappella (1985) contended that “Interpersonal power, status, competence, and attraction depend, at least in part, upon our ability to control speaking and listening roles” (p. 70). In- deed, without interactional control, relationships might never begin. Most of the time, an individual must take the initiative to meet and get to know another person. For example, researchers have described an attention stage as the first phase of courtship (Scheflen, 1965, 1974; see also chap. 3, this volume). Nonverbal behaviors such as looking over at someone, smil- ing demurely, positioning oneself in view of someone, and bumping into someone (seemingly accidentally although intentionally) are fairly common ways of trying to capture a potential romantic partner’s attention.

Within established relationships, turn-taking cues, talk time, interrup- tions, and listening behavior are all part of the interaction management process. Socially skilled individuals can use these behaviors as a domi- nance move by controlling the floor in such a way that her or his opinions and ideas are heard. In Dunbar and Burgoon’s (2005) study on romantic re- lationships, observers rated relational partners as more dominant when they talked a lot. Similarly, Lustig (1977) summarized research showing that people who talk more are generally perceived as more dominant and influ- ential, and to possess more leadership qualities, especially if they also dem- onstrate good listening skills when they move out of the speaking role. Non- verbal cues such as vocal backchannelling, nodding, and giving eye contact all show that a person is listening carefully. An experimental study by

Burgoon and Le Poire (1999) also illustrates the association between inter- actional management cues and perceptions of dominance. In their study, confederates manipulated different interaction management cues (along with other nonverbal behaviors). The participants who interacted with them, as well as observers who viewed the interactions on videotapes, then rated the confederates’ level of dominance. As predicted, Burgoon and Le Poire found that observers rated people as more dominant when they used fluent speech but enacted unsmooth turn-switching (likely due to the in- creased number of interruptions and simultaneous talk that occur in dyads where one or both individuals are using dominant communication). They did not, however, find a similar effect for participants. Burgoon and Le Poire ex- plained this finding by suggesting that observers were able to detect subtle cues related to conversational management better than participants, who were cognitively busy managing the interaction themselves. Dunbar and Burgoon (2005) found a similar pattern for men in their study on married and cohabiting couples; men were judged by observers as more dominant when they were vocally fluent but interrupted their partners. This finding, how- ever, did not extend to women or to partner ratings of men.

Leave-taking behaviors can also be related to dominance. As noted ear- lier, powerful people have the prerogative to end meetings or conversa- tions. Similarly, relational partners can show dominance by introducing a topic, changing the subject, or ending an interaction. In initial interaction, one form of leave-taking behavior involves rejecting someone’s romantic advances. Trost and Gabrielidis (1994) demonstrated that people frequently use nonverbal communication to communicate such rejection, thereby tak- ing control of the situation. These nonverbal strategies included: ignoring the person; maintaining a large proxemic distance; acting cold, indifferent, or casual; subtly displaying one’s wedding ring; and acting nervous and un- easy. In Trost and Gabrielidis’ study, 54.3% of the men and 68.5% of the women they surveyed reported using one or more of these nonverbal strat- egies to end interaction with individuals who were romantically interested in them.

Other more generic leave-taking behaviors include decreasing gaze (sometimes preceded by mutual gaze), facing away from a partner, looking at one’s watch or a clock, rapid head nodding, gathering up possessions, and tapping against a table or other object (Knapp, Hart, Friedrich, & Shulman, 1973; O’Leary & Gallois, 1985). People who have power may not need to engage in such behaviors very long, or at all, when they want to exit a situation. When two people share a close relationship, leave-taking behav- iors typically include smiling and other signs of positive affect, such as vo- cal warmth, that indicate that although the interaction is ending, the rela- tionship will continue (Burgoon et al., 1996). When a relational partner has a lot of power, he or she may be able to end interactions more abruptly or

without as much socially polite nonverbal behavior. As Baxter (1984a) dem- onstrated, the more powerful person is often less polite.

Panache or Dynamism

Sometimes, the more powerful person is also more dynamic. Indeed, Burgoon, Johnson, and Koch (1998) found panache or dynamism to be a key component of dominant communication. People who possess panache have a dramatic, memorable, and attention-grabbing communication style that is immediate, expressive, and energetic.

Immediacy behaviors decrease the physical and psychological distance between people, making the interaction more stimulating (Andersen, 1985; Patterson, 1983). As Mehrabian (1971b) first put it, the immediacy principle revolves around the idea that “People are drawn to persons they like, eval- uate highly, and prefer; and they avoid or move away from things they dis- like, evaluate negatively, or do not prefer” (p. 1). From this perspective, im- mediacy is an essential part of influencing others; immediacy helps secure attention and cement behavioral or attitudinal change. Immediacy can also help establish referent power. Key nonverbal immediacy behaviors include close distancing, touch, gaze, direct body orientation, and forward body lean (Patterson, 1983), as well as behaviors related to expressiveness, such as vocal animation, gesturing, and facial expression (Andersen, 1985).

Empirical evidence supports the idea that immediate, expressive behav- iors are related to power and influence (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1996), but dynamism may be a more potent tool for some communicators than others. For instance, in an early study, Pearce and Brommel (1972) con- trasted perceptions of speakers who varied in terms of credibility (high vs. low) and speaking style (dynamic vs. conversational). They operationalized a dynamic speaking style in terms of a voice that is faster, louder, and more animated than is typical during conversation. Pearce and Brommel found that highly credible people were more persuasive when they used a dy- namic speaking style, whereas less credible people fared betted when they used a more conversational style. This finding suggests that powerful indi- viduals may be expected (or given the latitude) to be more forceful and dra- matic than less powerful individuals, the latter of whom people expect to communicate in a more normative, conversational manner.

A later study by Burgoon et al. (1990) suggests that some nonverbal be- haviors related to dynamism might be more strongly related to influence than others. In this study, kinesic expressiveness and immediacy led to per- ceptions of dynamism, which ultimately increased the likelihood of persua- sion. Vocal expressiveness did not associate with more persuasion, but in- creased gaze, smiling, facial expressiveness, body movement, and vocal pleasantness all did. Previous research also suggests that certain types of

kinesic behavior are important indicators of power and dynamism. Bur- goon, Buller, and Woodall (1996) summarized this line of research by stat- ing, “Large, sweeping gestures also extend the individual’s spatial sphere of control and add an air of dynamic energy. Frequent gesturing, use of em- blems and pointing gestures, and a confident, rapid gait likewise contribute to the sense of potency” (p. 315).

INTERPERSONAL DOMINANCE THROUGH