GENDER DIFFERENCES IN DYADIC DOMINANCE DURING INTERPERSONAL INTERACTION: THE COMPARISON OF FRIENDS’ DYADS AND ROMANTIC COUPLES
Background. Dominance can be found in every dyadic relationship including romantic couples, friendships or business partnership. Even though research confirms that men tend to have more power than woman not only in romantic relationships, but also in friendships. However, some scholars doubt that men’s dominance and women’s submissiveness are just an established stereotype. Thus, more information about gender differences in power distribution in different types of dyads (friends and romantic) during interpersonal interaction is needed.
Aim.The aim of this study was to assess the differences in male and female dominance during the interpersonal interaction considering the types of dyads (same-sex friendships or heterosexual romantic partners).
Participants. 36 dyads participated in this study, which consisted of male friends’ dyads (N = 12), female friends’ dyads (N = 12), and heterosexual romantic couples (N =12). The participants aged between 18 and 31 years old with a mean age of 22 years old (SD = 2.23).
Method. The study consisted of two stages. In the first stage, the participants were asked some questions about themselves and their relationship, and were invited to participate in the experiment. All of the participants were informed about the terms of experiment (usage of video record) and were able to express their willingness
to participate in this study in written form. The second stage of the research was a quasi-experiment. During this stage participants, i.e. friends and romantic partners’ dyads, played the game “Jenga” for about 20 minutes.
Results, conclusion. It was found that women tend to dominate more than men during the interpersonal interaction in general and in romantic couples. No differences in dominance were found comparing female friends’ and male friends’ dyads. However, more dominance was found in heterosexual romantic couples comparing to the male and female friends’ dyads.
Burgoon, J. K. & Dunbar, N. E. (2000). An interactionist perspective on dominance – submission: Interpersonal dominance as a dynamic, situationally contingent social skill. Communication monographs, 67, 96–121.
Burgoon, M., Hunsaker, F. G., & Dawson, E. J. (1995). Human Communication. USA: Sage Publication.
Caricati, L. (2007). The relationship between social dominance orientation and gender: The mediating role of social values. Sex roles, 57, 159–171.
Carney, D. R., Hall, J. A., & LeBau, L. S. (2005). Beliefs about nonverbal expression of social power. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29 (2), 105–123.
Carter, D. C. (2010). Quantitative psychological research: the complete student’s companion. New York: Psychology Press.
Cozzolino, P. J. & Snyder, M. (2008). Good times, bad times: How personal disadvantage moderates the relationship between social dominance and efforts to win. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1420–1433.
Driskell, J. E., Olmstead, B., & Salas, E. (1993). Task cues, dominance cues, and influence in task groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 51-60.
Dunbar, N. E. (2004). Dyadic power theory: constructing a communication-based theory of relational power. The Journal of Family Communication, 4, 235–248.
Dunbar, N. E. & Abra, G. (2010). Observations of dyadic power in interpersonal interaction. Communication Monographs, 77, 657–684.
Dunbar, N. E., Bippus, A. M., & Young, S. L. (2008). Interpersonal dominance in relational conflict: A view from dyadic power theory. Interpersona, 2(1), 1–33.
Dunbar, N. E. & Burgoon, J. K. (2005). Perception of power and interactional dominance in interpersonal relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(2), 207–233.
Dunbar, N. E., Jensen, M. L., Bessarabova, E., Burgoon, J. K., Bernard, D. R., Harrison K. J., et al. (2012). Empowered by persuasive deception: the effects of power and deception on dominance, credibility, and decision making. Communication Research, 20(10), 1–25.
Dwyer, D. (2000). Interpersonal relationships. London: Routledge.
Ekman, P. & O‘Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a lair? American Psychological Association, 46, 913–920.
Felmlee, D. H. (1994). Who's on top? Power in romantic relationships. Sex Roles, 31, 275–295.
Foels, R. & Pappas, C. J. (2004). Learning and unlearning the myths we are taught: Gender and social dominance orientation. Sex Roles, 50, 743–757.
Galliher, R. V., Rostosky, S. S., Welsh, D. P., & Kawguchi, M. C. (1999). Power and psychological well-being in late adolescent romantic relationships. Sex Roles, 40, 689–710.
Gonzaga, G. C., Keltner, D., & Ward, D. (2008). Power in mixed-sex stranger interactions. Cognition and Emotion, 22(8), 1555–1568.
Guinote, A. (2007). Power and the suppression of unwanted thoughts: Does control over others descrease control over the self? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 433–440.
Hall J. A., Coats, E. J., & Lebau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 898–924.
Hareli, S., Shomrat, N., & Hess, U. (2009). Emotional versus neutral expressions and perceptions of social dominance and submissiveness. Emotion, 9, 378–384.
Helgeson, V. S. (2012). Psychology of gender. USA: Pearson.
Kiefer, A. M. & Sanchez, D. T.; (2007). Men’s sex-dominance inhibition: Do men automatically refrain from sexually dominant behavior? Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 1617-1631.
Lamb, T. A. (1981). Nonverbal and paraverbal control in dyads and triads: Sex or power differences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 49–53.
Lennon, C. A., Stewart, A. L., & Ledermann, T. (2012). The role of power in intimate relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(1) 95–114.
Luxen, M. F. (2005). Gender differences in dominance and affiliation during a demanding interaction. The Journal of Psychology, 139(4), 331–347.
Montepare, J. M. & Dobish, H. (2003). The contribution of emotion perceptions and their overgeneralizations to trait impressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27(4), 237 – 254.
Moskowitz, D. D. (1993). Dominance and friendliness: On the interaction of gender and situation. Journal of Personality, 61, 387–409.
Norton, R. W. & Miller, L. D. (1975). Dyadic perception of communication style. Communication Research, 2, 50–67.
Park, H. S. & Levine, T. (2001). A probability model of accuracy in deception detection experiments. Communication Monographs, 68, 201–210.
Ponzi, D., Klimczuk, C. E., Traficonte, D. M., & Maestripieri, D. (2014). Perceived dominance in young heterosexual couples in relation to sex, context, and frequency of arguing. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 9, 43–54.
Pula, K., McPherson, S., & Parks, C. D. (2012). Invariance of a two-factor model of social dominance orientation across gender. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 385–389.
Rogers, W. S., Bidwell, J., & Wilson, L. (2005). Perception of and satisfaction with relationships power, sex, and attachment styles: A couple’s level analysis. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 241–251.
Sprecher, S. & Felmlee, D. (1997). The balance of power in romantic heterosexual couples over time from "his'' and "her" perspectives. Sex Roles, 37, 361–379.
Snyder, J. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Barrett, H. C. (2008). The dominance dilemma: Do women really prefer dominant mates? Personal Relationships, 15, 425–444.
Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252–275.
Tani, F., Smorti, A., & Peterson, C. (2015). Is friendship quality reflected in memory narratives? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 1–23.
Veniegas, R. C. & Peplau, L. A. (1997). Power and the quality of same-sex friendship. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 279–297.
Willing, C. (2008). Introducing qualitative research in psychology. New York: Open University Press.
Youngquist, J. (2009). The effect of interruptions and dyad gender combination on perceptions of interpersonal dominance. Communication Studies, 60, 147–163.
Copyright (c) 2018 International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Articles submitted to the journal should be original contributions and should not be under consideration for any other publication at the same time. Authors submitting articles warrant that the work is not an infringement of any existing copyright and will indemnify the publisher against any breach of such warranty. For ease of dissemination and to ensure proper policing of use, papers and contributions become the legal copyright of the publisher unless otherwise agreed.
The International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach applies the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) licence to articles and other works published. Under this Open Access licence, authors agree that anyone can remix, tweak or build upon their articles in whole or part for free for non-comercial purposes using proper citation.
Readers may copy and distribute the material of this Journal in any medium or format, or reuse its content non-commercially as long as the authors of ideas and original source are properly cited. Users must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the licence, and indicate if changes were made. Users may not use the material of this Journal for commercial purposes without notification and agreement of copyright holders.