Look Me in the Eye: Manipulated Eye Gaze Affects Dominance Mindsets
- 1.5k Downloads
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.
KeywordsEye gaze Dominance Submission Ultimatum game Aggression
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289–304.Google Scholar
- Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Henley, N. M. (1973). Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 18, 1–26.Google Scholar
- Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.Google Scholar
- Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar