Advertisement

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 139–154 | Cite as

Posture mirroring and interactional involvement: Sex and sex typing effects

  • Marianne La France
  • William Ickes
Article

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of sex (male-male vs. female-female) and sex typing (sex typed-sex typed, sex typed-androgynous, and androgynous-androgynous) on dyadic posture mirroring between strangers in a “waiting room” context. Results revealed a significant interaction between sex composition and sex-typing composition such that among sex-typed pairs, females displayed more posture mirroring than males but among androgynous pairs, the effect was reversed with male dyads showing more posture sharing than female dyads. Results also showed a surprising negative relation between mirroring and rapport as well as a negative correlation between mirroring and verbalization. The suggestion made is that individual action in the form of talk and communal engagement in the form of mirroring may represent different modes of being involved in an interaction.

Keywords

Negative Correlation Significant Interaction Social Psychology Individual Action Typing Effect 
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. Argyle, M., & Ingham, R. Gaze, mutual gaze and proximity.Semiotica 1972,6 32–49.Google Scholar
  2. Bakan, D.The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand Mc Nally, 1966.Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin, J. M.Mental development in the child and in the race. New York: Macmillan, 1895.Google Scholar
  4. Bem, S. L. The measurement of psychological androgyny.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1974,42 155–162.Google Scholar
  5. Bem, S. L. Theory and measurement of androgyny: A reply to the Pedhazur-Tetenbaum and Locksley-Colten critiques.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1979,37 1047–1054.Google Scholar
  6. Charney, E. J. Psychosomatic manifestations of rapport in psychotherapy.Psychosomatic Medicine 1966,28 305–315.Google Scholar
  7. Henley, N. M.Body politics: Power, sex and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1977.Google Scholar
  8. Ickes, W., & Barnes, R. D. Boys and girls together—and alienated: On enacting stereotyped sex roles in mixed-sex dyads.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1978,36 669–683.Google Scholar
  9. Ickes, W., Schermer, B., & Steeno, J. Sex and sex-role influences in same-sex dyads.Social Psychology Quarterly 1979,42 373–385.Google Scholar
  10. La France, M. Nonverbal synchrony and rapport: Analysis by the cross-lag panel technique.Social Psychology Quarterly 1979,42 66–70.Google Scholar
  11. La France, M., & Broadbent, M. Group rapport: Posture sharing as a non-verbal indicator.Group and Organization Studies 1976,1 328–333.Google Scholar
  12. La France, M., & Mayo, C.Moving bodies: Nonverbal communication in social relationships. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1978.Google Scholar
  13. Locksley, A., & Colten, M. E. Psychological androgyny: A case of mistaken identity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1979,37 1017–1031.Google Scholar
  14. Mead, G. H.Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934.Google Scholar
  15. Pedhazur, E.J., & Tetenbaum, T.J. Bem Sex-Role Inventory: A theoretical and methodological critique.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1979,37 996–1016.Google Scholar
  16. Schleflen, A. E. The significance of posture in communication systems.Psychiatry 1964,27 316–331.Google Scholar
  17. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. The many faces of androgyny: A reply to Locksley and Colten.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1979,37 1032–1046.Google Scholar
  18. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. Ratings of self and peers on sex-role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1975,32 29–39.Google Scholar
  19. Trout, D. L., & Rosenfeld, H. M. The effect of postural lean and body congruence on the judgment of psychotherapeutic rapport.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 1980,4 176–190.Google Scholar
  20. Weitz, S. Sex differences in nonverbal communication.Sex Roles 1976,2 175–184.Google Scholar
  21. Wiggins, J. S., & Holzmuller, A. Psychological androgyny and interpersonal behavior.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1978,46 40–52.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marianne La France
    • 1
  • William Ickes
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyBoston CollegeChestnut Hill
  2. 2.the Department of PsychologyUniversity of Missouri at St. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations