Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 67–73 | Cite as

Handedness and lateral positioning in heterosexual couples: Are men still strong-arming women?

  • Richard J. Borden
  • Gorden M. Homleid
Article

Abstract

This study examined the way in which heterosexual couples arrange themselves while walking together. In same-handed couples, significantly more females were on the males' preferred (dominant) side than expected by chance — especially when the partners were touching. Apparently, handedness and lateral positioning combine to reflect a male-dominance tendency in this type of situation. In opposite-handed couples, males and females put their dominant sides together, especially when touching. Social implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are also discussed.

Keywords

Social Psychology Lateral Position Social Implication Heterosexual Couple Dominant Side 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baxter, J. C. Interpersonal spacing in natural settings. Sociometry, 1970, 33, 444–456.Google Scholar
  2. Blalock, H. M. Social statistics, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972.Google Scholar
  3. Deaux, K. K. The behavior of women and men. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1976.Google Scholar
  4. Duncan, S. Nonverbal communication. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 72, 118–137.Google Scholar
  5. Dusewicz, R. A., & Kershner, K. M. A scale for the measurement of lateral dominance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1969, 6, 187–188.Google Scholar
  6. Exline, R. V. Explorations in the process of person perception: Visual interaction in relation to competition, sex, and need for affiliation. Journal of Personality, 1963, 31, 1–20.Google Scholar
  7. Exline, R. V., Gray, D., & Shuette, D. Visual behavior in a dyad as affected by interview content and sex of respondent. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 201–209.Google Scholar
  8. Fisher, J. D., & Byrne, D. Too close for comfort: Sex differences in response to invasions of personal space. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 15–21.Google Scholar
  9. Henley, N. The politics of touch. In P. Brown (Ed.), Radical psychology. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. (a)Google Scholar
  10. Henley, N. Status and Sex: Some touching observations. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1973, 2, 91–93. (b)Google Scholar
  11. Knapp, M. L. Nonverbal communication in human interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972.Google Scholar
  12. Leibman, M. The effects of sex and race norms on personal space. Environment and Behavior, 1970, 2, 208–246.Google Scholar
  13. Maccoby, E. E. & Jacklin, C. N. The psychology of sex differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  14. Mehrabian, A. Nonverbal communication. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  15. Nguyen, T., Heslin, R., & Nguyen, M. L. The meaning of touch: Sex differences. Journal of Communication, 1975, 25, 92–103.Google Scholar
  16. Oldfield, R. C. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologica, 1971, 9, 97–113.Google Scholar
  17. Walker, J. W., & Borden, R. J. Sex, Status, and the invasion of shared space. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1976, 7, 28–34.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard J. Borden
    • 1
  • Gorden M. Homleid
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychological SciencesPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette

Personalised recommendations