Human Nature

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 306–321 | Cite as

Sex differences in negotiating with powerful males

An ethological analysis of approaches to nightclub doormen
Article

Abstract

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 words

Appeasements Behavioral strategies Dominance Evolution Nightclub doormen Power Sex differences Superior-subordinate interactions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bakeman, R., and J. M. Gottman 1986 Observing Interaction: An Introduction to Sequential Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, R. A. 1974 The Aggression-Inhibiting Influence of Heightened Sexual Arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30:318–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, P., and S. C. Levinson 1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1978)Google Scholar
  4. Buss, D. M., and T. K. Shackelford 1997 Human Aggression in Evolutionary Psychological Perspective. Clinical Psychology Review 17:605–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis, M. A., P. A., Larosa, and D. P. Foshee 1991 Emotion Work in Supervisor-Subordinate Relations: Gender Differences in the Perception of Angry Displays. Sex Roles 26:513–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. 1989 Human Ethology. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Grammer, K. 1995 Signale der Liebe. Die biologischen Gesetze der Partnerschaft. München: Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Grammer, K., and L. Renninger 2004 Disco Clothing, Female Sexual Motivation, and Relationship Status: Is She Dressed to Impress? Journal of Sex Research 41(1):66–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Halberstadt, A. G., and M. B. Saitta 1987 Gender, Nonverbal Behavior and Perceived Dominance: A Test of the Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53:257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maccoby, E. E., and C. N. Jacklin 1980 Sex Differences in Aggression: A Rejoinder and Reprise. Child Development 51:964–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mehrabian, A. 1972 Nonverbal Communication. New York: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
  14. Moore, M. M. 1985 Nonverbal Courtship Patterns in Women. Ethology and Sociobiology 6:237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sackett, G. P., ed. 1978 Observing Behavior, Vol. II. Data Collection and Analysis Methods. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Salter, F. K. 1995 Emotions in Command: A Naturalistic Study of Institutional Dominance. Oxford: Oxford University Press Science Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Transaction Publishers 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human EthologyMax Planck SocietyAndechsGermany
  2. 2.Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Urban EthologyVienna

Personalised recommendations