nach oben

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

Erschienen in:

01.06.2015 | Original Paper

Look Me in the Eye: Manipulated Eye Gaze Affects Dominance Mindsets

verfasst von: David Tang, Brandon J. Schmeichel

Erschienen in: Journal of Nonverbal Behavior | Ausgabe 2/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Research across animal species suggests that eye gaze plays an important role in dominance/submission interactions. In a confrontation, maintenance of eye contact may indicate a struggle for dominance whereas gaze aversion suggests a withdrawal from conflict. Past research has focused on measuring eye gaze patterns in various contexts. The current experiment directly manipulated eye gaze patterns toward versus away from the eyes of angry or non-emotional faces to study the impact on dominance-related self-perceptions and decisions on the ultimatum game. Maintaining eye contact led men to make more dominant choices on the ultimatum game. Maintaining eye contact with angry faces in particular caused an increase in self-perceptions of aggression, and self-perceptions of aggression predicted more dominant responses on the ultimatum game. Women also reported an increase in self-perceptions of aggression after maintaining eye contact with angry faces, but they did not behave in a more dominant fashion on the ultimatum game after maintaining direct eye contact with faces. These results suggest that eye gaze behavior can exert a causal influence on dominance-related responding.

Vorheriger Artikel The Look that Binds: Partner-Directed Altruistic Motivation and Biased Perception in Married Couples

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

We included other questionnaires to ensure that participants would not be able to guess the purpose of the study. These included the behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation scales (BIS/BAS; Carver and White 1994), the trait self-control scale (Tangney et al. 2004), and the social dominance orientation scale (SDO; Pratto et al. 1994). We did not have a priori predictions about these traits and found no serendipitous effects with them.

Participants rated angry faces as more mean than neutral faces (M _angry = 3.62, SD _angry = .84 vs. M _neutral = 2.30, SD _neutral = .79), t (174) = 10.56, p < .001, d = 1.62, more threatening (M _angry = 3.64, SD _angry = .90 vs. M _neutral = 2.36, SD _neutral = .82), t (174) = 9.77, p < .001, d = 1.49, and more dominant (M _angry = 3.48, SD _angry = .93 vs. M_neutral = 2.73, SD_neutral = .83), t (174) = 5.59, p < .001, d = .85. Neutral faces were rated as more attractive than the angry faces (M _neutral = 2.24, SD _neutral = .90 vs. M _angry = 1.65, SD _angry = .71) t (174) = 4.85, p < .001, d = .73, and more caring (M _neutral = 2.82, SD _neutral = .94 vs. M_angry = 2.03, SD_angry = .74) t (174) = 6.21, p < .001, d = .93.

Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289–304.

Björkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30, 177–188.CrossRef

Brose, A., Lindenberger, U., & Schmiedek, F. (2013). Affective states contribute to trait reports of affective well-being. Emotion, 13, 940–948.CrossRefPubMed

Brown, R. P., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2004). Narcissism and the non-equivalence of self-esteem measures: A matter of dominance? Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 585–592.CrossRef

Burnham, T. C. (2007). High-testosterone men reject low ultimatum game offers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274, 2327–2330.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452.CrossRefPubMed

Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Cameron, L. A. (1999). Raising the stakes in the ultimatum game: Experimental evidence from Indonesia. Economic Inquiry, 37, 47–59.CrossRef

Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.CrossRef

Chen, F. S., Minson, J. A., Schöne, M., & Heinrichs, M. (2013). In the eye of the beholder: Eye contact increases resistance to persuasion. Psychological Science, 24, 2254–2261.CrossRefPubMed

Coss, R. G., Marks, S., & Ramakrishnan, U. (2002). Early environment shapes the development of gaze aversion by wild bonnet macaques. Primates, 43, 217–222.CrossRefPubMed

Cronbach, L. J. (1958). Proposals leading to analytic treatment of social perception scores. In R. Tagiuri & L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior (pp. 353–379). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Dovidio, J. F., Ellyson, S. L., Keating, C. F., Heltman, K., & Brown, C. E. (1988). The relationship of social power to visual displays of dominance between men and women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 233–242.CrossRefPubMed

Dunning, J. P., & Hajcak, G. (2009). See no evil: Directing visual attention within unpleasant images modulates the electrocortical response. Psychophysiology, 46, 28–33.CrossRefPubMed

Duval, E. R., Lovelace, C. T., Aarant, J., & Filion, D. L. (2013). The time course of face processing: Startle eyeblink response modulation by face gender and expression. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 90, 354–357.CrossRefPubMed

Emery, N. J. (2000). The eyes have it: The neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 24, 581–604.CrossRefPubMed

Fischer, A. H. (1993). Sex differences in emotionality: Fact or stereotype? Feminism & Psychology, 3, 303–318.CrossRef

Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 898–924.CrossRefPubMed

Henley, N. M. (1973). Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 18, 1–26.

Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Henley, N. M. (1995). Body politics revisited: What do we know today. In P. J. Kalbfleisch & M. J. Cody (Eds.), Gender, power, and communication in human relationships (pp. 27–61). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Johns, G. (1981). Difference score measures of organizational behavior variables: A critique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, 443–463.CrossRef

Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22–63.CrossRefPubMed

Killingback, T., & Studer, E. (2001). Spatial ultimatum games, collaborations and the evolution of fairness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 268, 1797–1801.

Knutson, B. (1996). Facial expressions of emotion influence interpersonal trait inferences. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20, 165–182.CrossRef

Koch, S. C., Baehne, C. G., Kruse, L., Zimmermann, F., & Zumbach, J. (2010). Visual dominance and visual egalitarianism: Individual and group-level influences of sex and status in group interactions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 137–153.CrossRef

Leary, M. R., Cottrell, C. A., & Phillips, M. (2001). Deconfounding the effects of dominance and social acceptance on self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 898–909.CrossRefPubMed

Mazur, A., & Booth, A. (1998). Testosterone and dominance in men. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 353–363.CrossRefPubMed

Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R., & Van De Kuilen, G. (2004). Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Experimental Economics, 7, 171–188.CrossRef

Palanica, A., & Itier, R. J. (2012). Attention capture by direct gaze is robust to context and task demands. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36, 123–134.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.CrossRef

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.CrossRefPubMed

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Saad, G., & Gill, T. (2001). Sex differences in the ultimatum game: An evolutionary psychology perspective. Journal of Bioeconomics, 3, 171–193.CrossRef

Senju, A., & Johnson, M. H. (2009). The eye contact effect: Mechanisms and development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 127–134.CrossRefPubMed

Solnick, S. J. (2001). Gender differences in the ultimatum game. Economic Inquiry, 39, 189–200.CrossRef

Straub, P. G., & Murnighan, J. K. (1995). An experimental investigation of ultimatum games: Information, fairness, expectations, and lowest acceptable offers. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 27, 345–364.CrossRef

Suleiman, R. (1996). Expectations and fairness in a modified ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17, 531–554.CrossRef

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–324.CrossRefPubMed

Tedeschi, J. T., & Norman, N. (1985). Social power, self-presentation, and the self. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 293–322). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Terburg, D., Aarts, H., & van Honk, J. (2012). Testosterone affects gaze aversion from angry faces outside of conscious awareness. Psychological Science, 23, 459–463.CrossRefPubMed

Terburg, D., Hooiveld, N., Aarts, H., Kenemans, J. L., & van Honk, J. (2011). Eye tracking unconscious face-to-face confrontations: Dominance motives prolong gaze to masked angry faces. Psychological Science, 22, 314–319.CrossRefPubMed

Terburg, D., & van Honk, J. (2013). Approach–avoidance versus dominance–submissiveness: A multilevel neural framework on how testosterone promotes social status. Emotion Review, 5, 296–302.CrossRef

Tottenham, N., Tanaka, J. W., Leon, A. C., McCarry, T., Nurse, M., Hare, T. A., & Nelson, C. (2009). The NimStim set of facial expressions: Judgments from untrained research participants. Psychiatry Research, 168, 242–249.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Zak, P. J., Kurzban, R., Ahmadi, S., Swerdloff, R. S., Park, J., Efremidze, L., & Matzner, W. (2009). Testosterone administration decreases generosity in the ultimatum game. PLoS One, 4, e8330.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Titel: Look Me in the Eye: Manipulated Eye Gaze Affects Dominance Mindsets
verfasst von: David Tang
Brandon J. Schmeichel
Publikationsdatum: 01.06.2015
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Nonverbal Behavior / Ausgabe 2/2015
Print ISSN: 0191-5886
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-3653
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-015-0206-8