The Effects of Sexism on Nonverbal
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HE DOES, SHE DOES? THE EFFECTS OF SEXISM ON NONVERBAL COMPLEMENTARITY AND MIMICRY OF DOMINANCE AND AFFILIATION IN MIXED-GENDER DYADIC INTERACTIONS by Justin D. Wareham A dissertation submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Business Administration David Eccles School of Business The University of Utah August 2017 Copyright © Justin D. Wareham 2017 All Rights Reserved The University of Utah Graduate School STATEMENT OF DISSERTATION APPROVAL The dissertation of Justin D. Wareham has been approved by the following supervisory committee members: Kristina A. Diekmann , Co-Chair 5/30/2017 Date Approved Jennifer R. Overbeck , Co-Chair 5/30/2017 Date Approved Harris Sondak , Member 5/30/2017 Date Approved Elizabeth R. Tenney , Member 5/30/2017 Date Approved Paul H. White , Member 5/30/2017 Date Approved and by William S. Hesterly , Associate Dean of the David Eccles School of Business and by David B. Kieda, Dean of The Graduate School. ABSTRACT Previous research on the social dynamics of nonverbal communication has shown individuals who display nonverbal behaviors signaling dominance often elicit complementary responses of submissiveness from their partners. This interpersonal dynamic involving the nonverbal exchange of dominance cues, referred to as dominance complementarity, has been found to facilitate greater comfort in dyadic interactions compared with nonverbal mimicry (e.g., becoming dominant in response to dominance). People who become submissive to nonverbal expressions of dominance tend to be viewed as more likable by their partners, and in addition, dominance complementarity has been found to promote and enhance outcomes resulting from various social processes. For example, dyads who engage in dominance complementarity share more information with each other, and as a result, achieve higher levels of cooperation and are more likely to seek out mutually beneficial agreements and discover integrative solutions. However, prior studies on these social benefits have only examined the effects and outcomes of dominance complementarity within same-gender dyads. Therefore, the current paper examines the nonverbal dynamics of dominance complementarity and mimicry occurring during mixed-gender social interactions. Additionally, this research also examines antecedents to men’s displays of dominance towards women, and develops a conceptual model of nonverbal interpersonal dynamics within a mixed-gender dyadic context. In particular, this model proposes men’s endorsements of both benevolent and hostile sexist attitudes influence their propensity to exhibit dominance cues communicating men’s social control over women. This model also illustrates that women’s nonverbal responses to male partners’ dominance through their adoption of either dominance complementarity (i.e., becoming submissive) or nonverbal mimicry (i.e., becoming dominant) are affected by men’s concurrent displays of nonverbal cues indicating a desire for social affiliation. This conceptual model and corresponding hypotheses are empirically tested across three studies. Theoretical and practical implications of findings from this research and directions for future studies on the dynamics of nonverbal communication between men and women are discussed. iv For my mother, Kristi, who supported me at every turn in my winding academic journey. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT……………………………………………………..……………..……..….iii LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………….……………………...…..…viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………….………………….....…….ix Chapters 1 INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND……………...….…....…3 The Social Context of Mixed-Gender Interactions………………………………..5 Women’s Nonverbal Responses to Men’s Sexism……………............………....17 Interpersonal Dynamics of Nonverbal Complementarity and Mimicry in Mixed-Gender Interactions.………………………….………………………..26 2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND STUDY RESULTS……………......……..…36 Study 1: Relationships Between Men’s Sexism and Expressions of Dominance and Affiliation Towards Women……………………….....…......37 Study 2: Women’s Behavioral Responses to Men’s Nonverbal Cues Displayed With Sexist Attitudes……………………………………...………….44 Study 3: Women’s Nonverbal Mimicry and Complementarity Within Mixed-Gender Interactions………….……………………….…......…....57 3 GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION……….…………….…………..…79 Theoretical Contributions……………………….……………………...….…….81 Limitations and Future Research Directions………………………………….….87 Practical Implications…………………………………………………….…........91 Conclusion………………………………...……………………………………..93 Appendices A AMBIVALENT SEXISM INVENTORY…………..………………………………..95 B MEASURES OF DOMINANCE AND AFFILIATION………………….…......…...97 C STIMULI PHOTOGRAPHS (STUDY 2)…………….……………….…...…...........99 D MANIPULATION OF MEN’S SEXISM (STUDY 2).………………….……...…..100 E CONFEDERATE SCRIPTS DESCRIBING PAINTINGS (STUDY 3)….……..….102 F SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF LAB EQUIPMENT AND SETUP (STUDY 3)…....104 G VIDEO SCREENSHOTS OF CONFEDERATE DURING PILOT STUDY……....105 H CODING MANUAL AND PROCEDURES (STUDY 3)………..…...………....….107 I SUSPICION CHECK QUESTIONS (STUDY 3)………………..…………….…….112 REFERENCES…………………………..………………………………..……………113 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Conceptual model with theoretical propositions illustrating linkages between men’s sexism and both men’s and women’s nonverbal behaviors in mixed-gender dyads…….…………………………………………………………......35 2 Two-way interaction effect of men’s sexism and nonverbal cues on women’s nonverbal mimicry of affiliation in Study 2……………………………...……….......76 3 Two-way interaction effect of men’s sexism and nonverbal cues on women’s dominance complementarity and mimicry in Study 2……………………...…..……..76 4 Two-way interaction effect of male partner’s affiliation and dominance on women’s mimicry of affiliative cues during the picture description task………………….....…77 5 Two-way interaction effect of male partner’s affiliation and dominance on women’s mimicry of nonaffiliative cues during the picture description task……………..…….77 6 Two-way interaction effect of male partner’s affiliation and dominance on women’s initial body position at Time 1…………………………...…..……………..……..….78 7 Two-way interaction effect of affiliation and dominance on changes in women’s posture during the picture description task…………………….……....……………...78 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the many people who have generously helped me during my 7-year adventure. These people have truly gone above and beyond, and without them the immense effort to complete my dissertation would not have been successful. They include my attentive research mentors, Jen Overbeck, Tina Diekmann, Harris Sondak, Paul White, and Liz Tenney, who made sure I was never lacking in ways to reconsider ideas or thoughts about my own research. Also, McKenzie Rees, Ekaterina Netchaeva, Isaac Smith, and Maryam Kouchaki for providing invaluable support and guidance throughout my years as a doctoral student. In addition, I would like to thank my research “team” for going out of their way to assist in data collection and coding to literally overcome some very serious health obstacles in the process: Andy Soderberg, Teng Zhang, Micah Crapo, Elizabeth Hatton, and Ruth Hatton. I am also eternally grateful to Gerardo Okhuysen for providing valuable insight into absolutely every phase of my life as a doctoral student, from comprehensive exams to the job market, and everything in between and beyond. Finally, I would like to send a very special thank you to family and all my friends, especially Matt Barlow, Matt Del Rio, and Cameron Verhaal (who brought management expertise and friendship to the basketball courts of Utah). CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND With less than 60 days remaining before the 2016 United States general election, the stage was set at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York for the first of three primetime debates between the two remaining presidential candidates. A record 84 million television viewers tuned in live to watch this much-anticipated political event in which candidates publicly debated complex domestic and international policy issues, including the US economy, immigration, overseas wars, and global terrorism (Perlberg, 2016). The debate featured a historical mixed-gender interaction between Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton, the first female presidential candidate nominated by a major American political party, and the male Republican Party nominee Donald Trump. The debate commenced with candidates exchanging a customary handshake at center stage for several seconds, but as the handshake endured, Donald Trump then placed his free hand onto the back of Hillary Clinton as the two smiled for the cameras (Collinson, 2016). The second presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump began similar to the first debate, with both candidates converging towards center stage to greet each other. However, this time there would be no handshake. Instead, the candidates gestured two brief head nods toward each other, leaving several feet of physical distance 2 between themselves (Keneally, 2016; Newmyer, 2016). During this Town Hall-style debate, both candidates were provided chairs instead of podiums; Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump moved around the stage as they answered questions from audience members. At several points throughout the debate, while Hillary Clinton was addressing the audience Donald Trump could be seen frowning, nodding his head side-to-side in disagreement, grimacing, and rolling his