Sex Roles

, Volume 44, Issue 9–10, pp 537–556

Gender Differences and Similarities in Dominance Hierarchies in Same-Gender Groups Based on Speaking Time

Article

Abstract

This study aimed at investigating whether all-women and all-men groups differed in their hierarchical organization and stability of their rank orders across time. One hundred and sixteen European, middle-class, noncollege women and men (average age: 38) participated in small-group discussions twice within a week with the same group members. Speaking time served as the behavioral dominance indicator on which group hierarchies were based. Additionally, group members rank ordered each other on dominance after each interaction. In the first session, all-men groups were more hierarchically structured than all-women groups. During each session, all-women and all-men groups showed a similar significant increase in hierarchical structuring. For both women and men, rank orders remained stable during interactions and from the first to the second session. Results are discussed in terms of three theoretical models describing dominance hierarchies.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Adams, K. A., & Landers, A. D. (1978). Sex differences in dominance behavior. Sex Roles, 4, 215–223.Google Scholar
  2. Aries, E. J. (1976). Interaction patterns and themes of male, female and mixed groups. Small Group Behavior, 7, 7–18.Google Scholar
  3. Aries, E. J., Gold, C., & Weigel, R. H. (1983). Dispositional and situational influences on dominance behavior in small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 779–786.Google Scholar
  4. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  5. Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  6. Bales, R. F., Strodtbeck, F. L., Mills, T. M., & Roseborough, M. E. (1951). Channels of communication in small groups. American Sociological Review, 16, 461–468.Google Scholar
  7. Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction: An expectation states approach. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  8. Bischof-Köhler, D. (1990). Frau und Karriere in psychobiologischer Sicht [Woman and career in a psychobiological view]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie, 34, 17–28.Google Scholar
  9. Bischof-Köhler, D. (1992). Geschlechtstypische Besonderheiten im Konkurrenzverhalten: Evolutionäre Grundlagen und entwicklungspsychologische Fakten [Gender-typical peculiarities in competitive behavior: Evolutionary basis and developmental-psychological facts]. In G. Krell & M. Osterloh (Eds.), Personalpolitik aus der Sicht von Frauen.Was kann die Personalforschung von der Frauenforschung lernen? (pp. 251–281). München: Rainer Hampp Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Carlson Jones, D. (1984). Dominance and affiliation as factors in the social organization of same-gender groups of elementary school children. Ethology and Sociobiology, 5, 193–202.Google Scholar
  11. Cashdan, E. (1995). Hormones, sex, and status in women. Hormones and Behavior, 29, 354–366.Google Scholar
  12. Cashdan, E. (1998). Are men more competitive than women? British Journal of Social Psychology, 37,213–229.Google Scholar
  13. Charlesworth, W. R., & Dzur, C. (1987). Gender comparisons of preschoolers' behavior and resource utilization in group problem solving. Child Development, 58, 191–200.Google Scholar
  14. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.Google Scholar
  15. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., Miner, J. B., & Johnson, B. T. (1994). Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 135–159.Google Scholar
  16. Ellyson, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1985). Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior: Basic concepts and issues. In S. L. Ellyson & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior (pp. 1–27). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Gifford, R. (1991). Mapping nonverbal behavior on the interpersonal circle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 279–288.Google Scholar
  18. Ginter, G., & Lindskold, S. (1975). Rate of participation and expertise as factors influencing leader choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1085–1089.Google Scholar
  19. Golub, S., & Maxwell Canty, E. (1982). Sex-role expectations and the assumption of leadership by college women. Journal of Social Psychology, 116, 83–90.Google Scholar
  20. Hegstrom, J. L., & Griffith, W. I. (1992). Dominance, sex, and leader emergence. Sex Roles, 27, 209–220.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, C., Clay-Warner, J., & Funk, S. J. (1996). Effects of authority structures and gender on interaction in same-gender task groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 221–236.Google Scholar
  22. Kalma, A. (1991). Hierarchisation and dominance assessment at first glance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 165–181.Google Scholar
  23. Kimble, C. E., & Musgrove, J. I. (1988). Dominance in arguing mixed-sex dyads: Visual dominance patterns, talking time, and speech loudness. Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 1–16.Google Scholar
  24. King, W. C., Miles, E. W., & Kniska, J. (1991). Boys will be boys (and girls will be girls): The attribution of gender role stereotypes in a gaming situation. Sex Roles, 25, 607–623.Google Scholar
  25. Knight, G. P., & Chao, C. (1989). Gender differences in the cooperative, competitive, and individualistic social values of children. Motivation and Emotion, 13, 125–141.Google Scholar
  26. Lamb, T. A. (1980). Paralanguage hierarchies in dyads and triads: Talking first and talking the most. Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 221–224.Google Scholar
  27. Mazur, A. (1985). A biosocial model of status in face-to-face primate groups. Social Forces, 64, 377–402.Google Scholar
  28. Megargee, E. I. (1969). Influence of sex roles on the manifestation of leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 377–382.Google Scholar
  29. Megargee, E. I., Bogart, P., & Anderson, B. J. (1966). Prediction of leadership in a simulated industrial task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 292–295.Google Scholar
  30. Moskowitz, D. S., Suh, E. J., & Desaulniers, J. (1994). Situational influences on gender differences in agency and communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 751–761.Google Scholar
  31. Mosteller, F. M., & Bush, R. R. (1954). Selected quantitative techniques. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology: Vol. 1. Theory and method (pp. 289–334). Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  32. Mullen, B., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1989). Salience, motivation, and artifact as contributions to the relation between participation rate and leadership. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 545–559.Google Scholar
  33. Parker, R., & Omark, D. R. (1980). The social ecology of toughness. In D. R. Omark, F. F. Strayer, & D. G. Freedman (Eds.), Dominance relations: An ethological view of human conflict and social interaction (pp. 415–426). New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  34. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable relevant to social roles and intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.Google Scholar
  35. Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., & Sidanius, J. (1997). The gender gap: Differences in political attitudes and social dominance orientation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 49–68.Google Scholar
  36. Ridgeway, C. L., & Berger, J. (1986). Expectations, legitimation, and dominance behavior in task groups. American Sociological Review, 51, 603–617.Google Scholar
  37. Ridgeway, C. L., & Diekema, D. (1989). Dominance and collective hierarchy formation in male and female task groups. American Sociological Review, 54, 79–93.Google Scholar
  38. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Vol. 6). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). Comparing effect sizes of independent studies. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 500–504.Google Scholar
  40. Ruback, R. B., Dabbs, J. M., & Hopper, C.H. (1984). The process of brainstorming: An analysis of individual and group vocal parameters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 558–567.Google Scholar
  41. Savin-Williams, R. C. (1979). Dominance hierarchies in groups of early adolescents. Child Development, 50, 923–935.Google Scholar
  42. Schjelderup-Ebbe, T. (1922). Soziale Verhältnisse bei Vögeln [Social relationshipsamongbirds]. Zeitschrift f ¨ur Psychologie, 90, 106–107.Google Scholar
  43. Schmid Mast, M. (2001). Dominance expressed in speaking time and inferred dominance based on speaking time: A meta-analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  44. Schmid Mast, M. (in press). Female dominance hierarchies: Are they any different from males'? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.Google Scholar
  45. Stein, R. T., & Heller, T. (1979). An empirical analysis of the correlations between leadership status and participation rates reported in the literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1993–2002.Google Scholar
  46. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
  47. Troemel-Ploetz, S. (1994). “Let me put it this way, John:” Conversational strategies of women in leadership positions. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 199–209.Google Scholar
  48. Walters, A. E., Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Meyer, L. L. (1998). Gender and negotiator competitiveness: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 1–29.Google Scholar
  49. Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395–412.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Northeastern UniversityBoston;

Personalised recommendations