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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
We included other questionnaires to ensure that participants would not be able to guess the purpose of the study. These included the behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation scales (BIS/BAS; Carver and White 1994), the trait self-control scale (Tangney et al. 2004), and the social dominance orientation scale (SDO; Pratto et al. 1994). We did not have a priori predictions about these traits and found no serendipitous effects with them.
Participants rated angry faces as more mean than neutral faces (M angry = 3.62, SD angry = .84 vs. M neutral = 2.30, SD neutral = .79), t (174) = 10.56, p < .001, d = 1.62, more threatening (M angry = 3.64, SD angry = .90 vs. M neutral = 2.36, SD neutral = .82), t (174) = 9.77, p < .001, d = 1.49, and more dominant (M angry = 3.48, SD angry = .93 vs. Mneutral = 2.73, SDneutral = .83), t (174) = 5.59, p < .001, d = .85. Neutral faces were rated as more attractive than the angry faces (M neutral = 2.24, SD neutral = .90 vs. M angry = 1.65, SD angry = .71) t (174) = 4.85, p < .001, d = .73, and more caring (M neutral = 2.82, SD neutral = .94 vs. Mangry = 2.03, SDangry = .74) t (174) = 6.21, p < .001, d = .93.
Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289–304.
Björkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30, 177–188.
Brose, A., Lindenberger, U., & Schmiedek, F. (2013). Affective states contribute to trait reports of affective well-being. Emotion, 13, 940–948.
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.
Burnham, T. C. (2007). High-testosterone men reject low ultimatum game offers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274, 2327–2330.
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452.
Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Cameron, L. A. (1999). Raising the stakes in the ultimatum game: Experimental evidence from Indonesia. Economic Inquiry, 37, 47–59.
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.
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.
Coss, R. G., Marks, S., & Ramakrishnan, U. (2002). Early environment shapes the development of gaze aversion by wild bonnet macaques. Primates, 43, 217–222.
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.
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.
Dunning, J. P., & Hajcak, G. (2009). See no evil: Directing visual attention within unpleasant images modulates the electrocortical response. Psychophysiology, 46, 28–33.
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.
Emery, N. J. (2000). The eyes have it: The neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 24, 581–604.
Fischer, A. H. (1993). Sex differences in emotionality: Fact or stereotype? Feminism & Psychology, 3, 303–318.
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.
Henley, N. M. (1973). Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 18, 1–26.
Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
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.
Johns, G. (1981). Difference score measures of organizational behavior variables: A critique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, 443–463.
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22–63.
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.
Knutson, B. (1996). Facial expressions of emotion influence interpersonal trait inferences. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20, 165–182.
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.
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.
Mazur, A., & Booth, A. (1998). Testosterone and dominance in men. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 353–363.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Saad, G., & Gill, T. (2001). Sex differences in the ultimatum game: An evolutionary psychology perspective. Journal of Bioeconomics, 3, 171–193.
Senju, A., & Johnson, M. H. (2009). The eye contact effect: Mechanisms and development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 127–134.
Solnick, S. J. (2001). Gender differences in the ultimatum game. Economic Inquiry, 39, 189–200.
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.
Suleiman, R. (1996). Expectations and fairness in a modified ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17, 531–554.
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.
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.
Terburg, D., Aarts, H., & van Honk, J. (2012). Testosterone affects gaze aversion from angry faces outside of conscious awareness. Psychological Science, 23, 459–463.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
About this article
Cite this article
Tang, D., Schmeichel, B.J. Look Me in the Eye: Manipulated Eye Gaze Affects Dominance Mindsets. J Nonverbal Behav 39, 181–194 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-015-0206-8
- Eye gaze
- Ultimatum game