|
Power and dominance-submission are two key dimensions of relationships, especially close relationships in which parties rely on one another to achieve their goals〔Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005〕 and as such it is important to be able to identify indicators of dominance.〔Russel (as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005) describes, "the fundamental concept in social science is power, in the same way that energy is the fundamental concept in physics"〕 Power is the ability to influence behavior〔(Bachrach and Lawler; Berger; Burgoon ''et al.''; Foa and Foa; French and Raven; Gray-Little and Burks; Henley; Olson and Cromwell; Rollins and Bahr, as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005)〕 and may not be fully assessable until it is challenged with equal force.〔(Huston, as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005)〕 Unlike power, which can be latent, dominance is a manifest condition characterized by individual,〔Komter, as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005)〕 situational and relationship patterns in which attempts to control another party or parties may or may not be accepted.〔(Rogers-Millar and Millar,as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005)〕 Moskowitz, Suh, and Desaulniers (1994) describe two similar ways that people can relate to society as parties to interpersonal relationships: agency and communion. Agency includes status and is on a continuum from assertiveness-dominance to passive-submissiveness; it can be measured by subtracting submissiveness from dominance. Communion includes love and falls on a continuum from warm-agreeable to cold-hostile-quarrelsome. Those with the greatest and least power typically do not assert dominance while those with more equal relationships make more control attempts.〔Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005〕 Power and dominance are closely related concepts that greatly impact relationships. In order to understand how dominance captures relationships one must understand the influence of gender and social roles while watching for verbal and nonverbal indicators of dominance. ==Verbal indicators== Verbal indicators influence perceptions of dominance. To date dominance has been linked to vocal control (Lamb, 1981, as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005), loudness as measured by amplitude (Burgoon and Hoobler, 2002, as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005; and Dillard, 2000), pitch as measured by frequency (Burgoon and Hoobler, 2002, as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005; Dillard, 2000), interruptions (Karawosky ''et al.''., as cited in Youngquist, 2009; Karakowsky, McBey, and Miller, as cited in Youngquist, 2009), disfluencies (Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005), amount of talk time (Burgoon and Hoobler, 2002, as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005) speech rate or the number of words used in an encounter, and message length (Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005; and Dillard, 2000). An important factor for humans and animals to detect in order to survive is the idea of involvement which can be indicated through change and intensity (Tusing and Dillard, 2000). Vocal characteristics such as amplitude and frequency variation indicate change while speech rate can indicate intensity (Tusing and Dillard, 2000). Those with a high speech rate talk faster and as such are usually perceived as more dominant (Aronvitch; Buller and Aune; Buller and Burgoon; Harrigan ''et al.''.; Scherer ''et al.''., as cited in Tusing and Dillard, 2000). Interruptions, vocal control, loudness, pitch, verbosity, speech rate and message length were found to predict perceptions of dominance. In general, interruptions and perceptions of dominance follows a curvilinear relationship (Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005;Youngquist, 2009). Also, when asked to think of typical behaviors of powerful individuals, Carney, Hall, and LeBeau (2005) found that those that were thought to hold more power were also perceived to have more successful interruptions as well as fewer disfluencies. As promised earlier, gender differences exist within interruptions too. Youngquist (2009) chose to look at how dominance as indicated by intrusive interruptions is perceived differently depending on the gender composition of dyads. This was done by asking 378 individuals to listen to one of 4 recordings with 3 subsections, each subsection contained 2 interruptions. The recording was paused after each subsection and assessments were made about dominance. In addition, the conversations varied by gender composition, male/male, female/male, etc. with the same actor making a total of six interruptions within one recording. His findings show that overall, female interrupters in the same sex dyad are perceived as most dominant while male interrupters in a cross sex dyad are perceived as least dominant. This is in contrast to Dunbar and Burgoon's (2005) finding that men overall are perceived as the most dominant with increased interruptions. Youngquist (2009) additionally finds that females in the same sex groups, who interrupt, are perceived as more dominant than males in the same sex group. Though an interrupter in the same sex group was seen more dominant than the male in the cross sex group, it was only for the first two interruptions. Also, for the first section of the survey (with two interruptions, in the same conversation) but not the second or third sections it was found that the female interrupter, compared to a male interrupter, was seen as more dominant in a cross sex dyad. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Expressions of dominance」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|