Sex differences in negotiating with powerful males
A hypothesis derived from evolutionary theory and previous qualitative observation is that male and female subordinates deploy different interpersonal signals to obtain concessions from powerful males. The present study tested this hypothesis by means of a quantitative naturalistic observational method. Would-be patrons were videotaped approaching the entrance of an exclusive nightclub in Munich, Germany, where doormen control entry. Patrons’ dominance, affiliative, and sexual signals in gestures and dress were coded for conditions of low and high doorman threat. Although both sexes used appeasing gestures of smiles and greetings, females deployed many appeasements using affiliative and courtship signals while males tended to withhold appeasements by masking agonistic affect. Moreover, when approaching larger numbers of doormen, males accelerated while females slowed down. The evolutionary hypothesis was confirmed, at least for our German sample, that males and females use some different strategies for minimizing threat from powerful males.
Key wordsAppeasements Behavioral strategies Dominance Evolution Nightclub doormen Power Sex differences Superior-subordinate interactions
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bakeman, R., and J. M. Gottman 1986 Observing Interaction: An Introduction to Sequential Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Brown, P., and S. C. Levinson 1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1978)Google Scholar
- Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. 1989 Human Ethology. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- 1990 Dominance, Submission, and Love: Sexual Pathologies from the Perspective of Ethology. In Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, J. R. Feierman, ed. Pp. 150–175. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Grammer, K. 1995 Signale der Liebe. Die biologischen Gesetze der Partnerschaft. München: Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag.Google Scholar
- 2001 Sex and Gender in Advertisements: Indoctrination and Exploitation. In Ethnic Conflict and Indoctrination: Altruism and Identity in Evolutionary Perspective, I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt and F. K. Salter, eds. Pp. 219–240. New York and Oxford: Berghahn.Google Scholar
- Mehrabian, A. 1972 Nonverbal Communication. New York: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
- Sackett, G. P., ed. 1978 Observing Behavior, Vol. II. Data Collection and Analysis Methods. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
- Sackett, G. P. 1979 The Lag Sequential Analysis of Contingency and Cyclicity in Behavioral Interaction Research. In Handbook of Infant Development, J. D. Osofsky, ed. Pp. 623–652. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
- Salter, F. K. 1995 Emotions in Command: A Naturalistic Study of Institutional Dominance. Oxford: Oxford University Press Science Publications.Google Scholar