Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 241–260 | Cite as

Attaining Status at the Expense of Likeability: Pilfering Power Through Conversational Interruption

Original Paper

Abstract

Do status expectations affect how we interpret interruption in conversation? Two experiments examined how interrupters and their targets are perceived in same- and mixed-gender dyads. In Experiment 1, participants listened to a brief audiotaped conversation in which one person interrupted the other five times. In Experiment 2, four confederates (two men and two women) systematically interrupted naïve participants while discussing an article. In general, interrupters gained in status and targets of interruption lost status. In addition, participants who were interrupted rated themselves as less influential than those who were not interrupted. As expected, interrupters, especially female interrupters, were liked less than those who did not interrupt. Theoretical implications are discussed.

Keywords

Nonverbal behavior Power Status Interruption Group dynamics 

References

  1. Anderson, K. J., & Leaper, C. (1998). Meta-analyses of gender effects on conversational interruption: Who, what, when, where, and how. Sex Roles, 39(3/4), 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aries, E. (1998). Gender differences in interaction: A reexamination. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction (pp. 65–81). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Beattie, G. W. (1981). Interruption in conversational interaction, and its relation to the sex and status of the interactants. Linguistics, 19, 15–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger, J. (1974). Expectation states theory: A theoretical research program. In J. Berger, T. L. Conner, & M. H. Fisek (Eds.), Expectation states theory: A theoretical research program (pp. 3–22). Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M, Jr. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37, 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 30–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burgoon, J. K., & Dunbar, N. E. (2006). Nonverbal expressions of dominance and power in human relationships. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 279–297). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Burgoon, J. K., & Ebesu Hubbard, A. S. (2005). Cross-cultural and intercultural applications of expectancy violations theory and interaction adaptation theory. In W. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 149–171). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55, 58–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chambliss, C. A., & Feeny, N. (1992). Effects of sex of subject, sex of interrupter, and topic of conversation on the perceptions of interruptions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 1235–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dabbs, J. M, Jr., & Ruback, R. B. (1984). Vocal patterns in male and female groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 518–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fisek, M. H., Berger, J., & Norman, R. Z. (1991). Participation in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups: A theoretical integration. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 114–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Floyd, K., Ramirez, A, Jr., & Burgoon, J. K. (1999). Expectancy violations theory. In L. K. Guerrero, J. A. DeVito, & M. L. Hecht (Eds.), The nonverbal communication reader (2nd ed., pp. 437–444). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  14. Foschi, M., & Lapointe, V. (2002). On conditional hypotheses and gender as a status characteristic. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65(2), 146–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall, J. A. (2006). Nonverbal behavior, status, and gender: How do we understand their relations? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(4), 384–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & Smith LeBeau, L. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 898–924.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Hopcroft, R. (2002). Is gender still a status characteristic? Current Research in Social Psychology, 7(20), 339–347.Google Scholar
  20. James, D., & Clarke, S. (1993). Women, men, and interruptions: A critical review. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and conversational interaction (pp. 231–280). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kennedy, C. W., & Camden, C. (1983). A new look at interruptions. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47, 45–58.Google Scholar
  22. LaFrance, M. (1992). Gender and interruptions: Individual infraction or violation of the social order? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 497–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewis, R. J., Derlega, V. J., Shankar, A., Cochard, E., & Finkel, L. (1997). Nonverbal correlates of confederates’ touch: Confounds in touch research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 821–830.Google Scholar
  24. Malloy, T. E., & Janowski, C. L. (1992). Perceptions and metaperceptions of leadership: Components, accuracy, and dispositional correlates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 700–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rashotte, L. S., & Webster, M, Jr. (2005). Gender status beliefs. Social Science Research, 34(3), 618–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ridgeway, C. L. (1982). Status in groups: The importance of motivation. American Sociological Review, 47, 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ridgeway, C. L. (1987). Nonverbal behavior, dominance, and the basis of status in task groups. American Sociological Review, 52, 683–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ridgeway, C. L., & Berger, J. (1986). Expectations, legitimation, and dominance behavior in task groups. American Sociological Review, 51, 603–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ridgeway, C. L., Berger, J., & Smith, L. (1985). Nonverbal cues and status: An expectation states approach. American Journal of Sociology, 5, 955–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Robinson, L. F., & Reis, H. T. (1989). The effects of interruption, gender, and status on interpersonal perceptions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roger, D., & Nesshoever, W. (1987). Individual differences in dyadic conversational strategies: A further study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 247–255.Google Scholar
  32. Schmid Mast, M. (2002). Dominance as expressed and inferred through speaking time: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28, 420–450.Google Scholar
  33. Skvoretz, J., & Fararo, T. J. (1996). Status and participation in task groups: A dynamic network model. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 1366–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith-Lovin, L., & Brody, C. (1989). Interruptions in group discussions: The effects of gender and group composition. American Sociological Review, 54, 424–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tannen, D. (1993). The relativity of linguistic strategies: Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and conversational interaction (pp. 165–188). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wagner, D. G. (1988). Status violations: Toward an expectation states theory of the social control of deviance. In M. Webster Jr. & M. Foschi (Eds.), Status generalization: New theory and research (pp. 110–122). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Wagner, D. G., & Berger, J. (1997). Gender and interpersonal task behaviors: Status expectation accounts. Sociological Perspectives, 40, 1–32.Google Scholar
  38. Webster, M, Jr., & Driskell, J. E, Jr. (1985). Status generalization. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch Jr. (Eds.), Status, rewards, and influence: How expectations organize behavior (pp. 108–141). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Inc.Google Scholar
  39. Welsh, P. (1999, January 19). Colleges need higher standards, not high school warranties. USA Today, p. 17A.Google Scholar
  40. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1983). Small insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sex conversations between unacquainted persons. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language, gender and society (pp. 102–117). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Wiley, M. G., & Woolley, D. E. (1988). Interruptions among equals: Power plays that fail. Gender and Society, 2, 90–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wood, W., & Karten, S. J. (1986). Sex differences in interaction style as a product of perceived sex differences in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 341–347.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Applied Behavioral SciencesUniversity of BaltimoreBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations