Visual Behavior as an Aspect of Power Role Relationships
There is an intriguing paradox inherent in the shared glance. On the one hand, there is the suggestion that willingness to engage in mutual glances is a means of establishing union with another (Simmel, 1969) — a suggestion which is supported by empirical evidence that affiliative motives (Exline, 1963) and loving relationships (Rubin, 1970) are characterized by relatively greater amounts of mutual looks than are their opposites. On the other hand, there is the suggestion, also backed with empirical evidence, that a mutual glance elicits threat displays between subhuman primates (Hinde and Rowell, 1962; Hall and Devore, 1965; Jay, 1965), that the fixed glance of one human is associated with another’s accelerated movement away (Ellsworth, Carlsmith, & Henson, 1972), and that, in specified circumstances, the one who first breaks off a mutual glance is socially subordinate (Edelman, Omark, & Freedman, 1971), while one who looks steadily at another in silence is perceived to be more dominant than one who looks briefly (Thayer, 1969).
KeywordsVisual Attention Control Orientation Summer Camp Power Position Power Role
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Chekhov, A. “The Name-Day Party,” 1888. Translated by Constance Garnett. In A. Yarmolinsky (Ed.), The Portable Chekhov. New York: Viking Press, 1947.Google Scholar
- Edelman, M. S., Omark, D. R., & Freedman, D. G. Dominance hierarchies in children. Unpublished manuscript, Committee on Human Development, University of Chicago, 1971.Google Scholar
- Ellyson, S. L. Visual interaction and attraction in dyads with legitimate power differences. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1973.Google Scholar
- Ellyson, S. L. Visual behavior exhibited by males differing as to interpersonal control orientation in one- and two-way communication systems. Unpublished dissertation, University of Delaware, 1974.Google Scholar
- Exline, R. V. Visual interaction: The glances of power and preference. In J. K. Cole (Ed.), Current theory and research in motivation (Vol. 19). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1972, pp. 163–206.Google Scholar
- Exline, R. V., & Long, B. Visual behavior in relation to power of position in legitimate and illegitimate power hierarchies. Unpublished manuscript, University of Delaware, 1971.Google Scholar
- Exline, R. V., & Winters, L. C. Effects of cognitive difficulty and cognitive style upon eye to eye contact in interviews. Paper read at Eastern Psychological Association meetings, 1965.Google Scholar
- Hall, K. R. L., & Devore, I. Baboon social behavior. In I. Devore (Ed.), Primate behavior: Field studies of monkeys and apes. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965, pp. 53–110.Google Scholar
- Jay, P. Field studies. In A. Schrier, H. F. Harlow, and F. Stollnitz (Eds.), Behavior of nonhuman primates: Modern research trends. New York: Academic Press, 1965, pp. 525–592.Google Scholar
- Schutz, W. C. FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1958.Google Scholar
- Simmel, G. Sociology of the senses: Visual interaction. In R. E. Park and E. W. Burgess (Eds.), Introduction to the science of sociology. (Rev. ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969, 356–361.Google Scholar
- Thibaut, J. W., & Kelly, H. H. The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley, 1959.Google Scholar