Picture Power: Gender Versus Body Language in Perceived Status
- 3.6k Downloads
Power hierarchies in interaction are maintained due to a variety of cues, including gender and body language, and can keep competent individuals from being regarded as high status. The present study primed participants with an image consisting of two components—gender (man or woman) and body pose (dominant or submissive)—and then asked participants to classify written target words as either dominant or submissive. In response to these target words, we measured accuracy (% incorrect) and classification speed (RT), in addition to event-related potentials (ERPs), from 23 participants. Although we did not find ERP differences in the predicted N400 component, error rate and RT measures indicated that regardless of the gender of the prime, dominant poses facilitated identification of dominant words. Interestingly, whereas female submissive posing facilitated classification of submissive target words, male submissive posing did not. These results support the idea that women can use counter-stereotypical nonverbal displays, dominant poses, to change how they are initially perceived in terms of power. Interestingly, men may be more limited in the success of their counter-stereotypical, submissive, posing. Potential underlying mechanisms are discussed.
KeywordsGender Power Pose Body language Dominance
The authors would like to thank the Psychology Department at Colgate University for allowing them access to their facilities to run the experiment, Dr. Carrie Keating for her intellectual contributions, Timothy Collett for his technical assistance, and research assistant Rachel Goldberg for her professionalism and organization.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Aries, E. (1996). Men and women in interaction: Reconsidering the differences. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Biernat, M. (2009). Stereotypes and shifting standards. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 137–152). New York: Taylor & Francis Group LLC.Google Scholar
- Buss, D. M. (2004). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Incorporated.Google Scholar
- Catalyst. (2013). Women CEOs of the fortune 1000. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-ceos-fortune-1000
- Center for American Women and Politics. (2013). Women in the US Congress 2013. Retrieved from http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/levels_of_office/documents/cong.pdf.
- Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Den Hagg: Mouton.Google Scholar
- de Gelder, B., van den Stock, J., Meeren, H. K. M., Sinke, C. B. A., Kret, M. E., & Tamietto, M. (2010). Standing up for the body. Recent progress in uncovering the networks involved in the perception of bodies and bodily expressions. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 513–527.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
- Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
- Hall, J. A. (1990). Nonverbal sex differences: Accuracy of communication and expressive style. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Hall, J. A. (1998). How big are nonverbal sex differences? The case of smiling and sensitivity to nonverbal cues. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (pp. 155–178). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.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). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
- Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Patto, F., Levin, S., Thomsen, L., Kteily, N., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2012). Social dominance orientation: Revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 583–606.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Keating, C. F. (2011). Channeling charisma through face and body status cues. In D. Chadee & A. Kostic (Eds.), Social psychological dynamics (pp. 93–111). Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press.Google Scholar
- Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62(14), 1–27.Google Scholar
- Levant, R. F., & Pollack, W. S. (1995). Introduction. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A New psychology of men (pp. 1–10). New York: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
- Murphy, K. R., Myors, B., & Wolach, A. H. (2009). Statistical power analysis: A simple and general model for traditional and modern hypothesis tests. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- O’Neil, J. M., Good, G. E., & Holmes, S. (1995). Fifteen years of theory and research on men’s gender role conflict: New paradigms for empirical research. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 164–206). New York: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
- Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11–32). New York: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
- Sokal, R. R., & Rohlf, F. J. (2012). Biometry: The principles and practice of statistics in biological research (4th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar