Advertisement

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 181–194 | Cite as

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

  • David Tang
  • Brandon J. Schmeichel
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Eye gaze Dominance Submission Ultimatum game Aggression 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289–304.Google Scholar
  2. Björkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30, 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brose, A., Lindenberger, U., & Schmiedek, F. (2013). Affective states contribute to trait reports of affective well-being. Emotion, 13, 940–948.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnham, T. C. (2007). High-testosterone men reject low ultimatum game offers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274, 2327–2330.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cameron, L. A. (1999). Raising the stakes in the ultimatum game: Experimental evidence from Indonesia. Economic Inquiry, 37, 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Coss, R. G., Marks, S., & Ramakrishnan, U. (2002). Early environment shapes the development of gaze aversion by wild bonnet macaques. Primates, 43, 217–222.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dunning, J. P., & Hajcak, G. (2009). See no evil: Directing visual attention within unpleasant images modulates the electrocortical response. Psychophysiology, 46, 28–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Emery, N. J. (2000). The eyes have it: The neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 24, 581–604.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischer, A. H. (1993). Sex differences in emotionality: Fact or stereotype? Feminism & Psychology, 3, 303–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Henley, N. M. (1973). Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 18, 1–26.Google Scholar
  20. Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Johns, G. (1981). Difference score measures of organizational behavior variables: A critique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, 443–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Knutson, B. (1996). Facial expressions of emotion influence interpersonal trait inferences. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20, 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Mazur, A., & Booth, A. (1998). Testosterone and dominance in men. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 353–363.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Saad, G., & Gill, T. (2001). Sex differences in the ultimatum game: An evolutionary psychology perspective. Journal of Bioeconomics, 3, 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Senju, A., & Johnson, M. H. (2009). The eye contact effect: Mechanisms and development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 127–134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Solnick, S. J. (2001). Gender differences in the ultimatum game. Economic Inquiry, 39, 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Suleiman, R. (1996). Expectations and fairness in a modified ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17, 531–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Terburg, D., Aarts, H., & van Honk, J. (2012). Testosterone affects gaze aversion from angry faces outside of conscious awareness. Psychological Science, 23, 459–463.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Texas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations