The Effects of Sexism on Nonverbal

HE DOES, SHE DOES? THE EFFECTS OF SEXISM ON NONVERBAL

COMPLEMENTARITY AND MIMICRY OF DOMINANCE

AND AFFILIATION IN MIXED-GENDER

DYADIC INTERACTIONS

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

Business Administration

David Eccles School of Business

The University of Utah

August 2017

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.

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

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 eyes—all while he remained standing close behind Hillary Clinton and looming over her (Hatch, 2016; Uhrmacher & Gamio, 2016).

These examples raise questions about the potential meaning of such nonverbal cues within a mixed-gender dyadic context. For example, what messages does Donald

Trump’s touch to Hillary Clinton’s back convey to both his female counterpart and outside observers? Does his touch reveal an intention to build more rapport with his opponent, or is he using it to express his dominance and/or social status? Moreover, why

did both candidates greet each other with head nods in the second debate instead of

physically shaking hands as in the first debate? How did Hillary Clinton’s appraisal of

Donald Trump’s attitudes toward women and his body language subsequently affect her own nonverbal displays of body language towards Donald Trump? Meanings of these nonverbal cues expressed in other mixed-gender social interactions, once decoded, may

offer insight into these questions. Such a focus could provide a greater understanding of

the interpersonal dynamics of nonverbal communication in mixed-gender dyads, which

involve a complex interplay of men’s and women’s expressions of nonverbal cues,

social-cognitive appraisals, and subtle behavioral responses.

In the current research, I argue that, within mixed-gender dyads, men’s display of

nonverbal cues towards women is uniquely related to their sexist attitudes towards

3 women. To provide a real-world example to frame this argument, consider the previous description of the US presidential debates. Donald Trump’s sexist ideology can be discerned through his prior remarks about women. For instance, he has publicly conveyed sexist views that women seek to gain power and/or social control over men, writing, “The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers. I have seen women manipulate men with just a twitch of their eye ̶ or perhaps another body part”

(Trump, 1997, p. 118).

The sexism reflected in Donald Trump’s remarks about women suggests a possible interpretation of the nonverbal cues he displayed toward Clinton. For example, his initiation of an extra touch during his handshake with Hillary Clinton may represent a direct nonverbal signal of his dominance and assertion of greater social status (e.g., Hall,

1996). Consistent with this example, I argue that hostile forms of sexism are related to men’s display of dominance and nonaffiliation towards women. As a result of his hostile sexist attitudes, Donald Trump may be likely to exhibit nonverbal dominance and nonaffiliative behaviors (e.g., frowning, eye rolling, head rolling) when interacting with a female partner, as opposed to with a male partner.

I also argue that benevolent forms of sexism are associated with men’s dominance displays. However, whereas hostile sexist attitudes are negatively related to nonaffiliative cues, benevolent sexist attitudes are positively related to men’s expression of affiliative nonverbal behaviors (e.g., smiling, head nodding, leaning forward).

I argue further that women respond to male partners’ dominance displays with their own nonverbal behaviors reflecting the interpersonal dimensions of dominance and affiliation (Ambady & Weisback, 2010; Hall, 1996; Hall, 2006; Hall et al., 2001; Mast &

Hall, 2004). Such responses reflect both the simple interpersonal dynamic of

complimentary or mimicry, as discussed in past research (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999;

Chatrand & Lakin, 2013; Tiedens & Fragale, 2003), and intrapersonal dynamics. I predict

a straightforward interpersonal effect whereby women’s nonverbal behavior is influenced

by the coupling of men’s dominance with affiliative nonverbal cues. Specifically, when

men display dominance coupled with affiliative cues, women respond with

complementarity: They become more submissive in their nonverbal posture. However,

when men’s dominance is coupled with nonaffiliative cues, women respond with

nonverbal mimicry and become more posturally dominant towards male partners. I argue

that women’s behavioral responses to men’s nonverbal behavior can be characterized by

two unique interpersonal dynamics: Women’s adoption of dominance complementarity

(i.e., becoming submissive) or nonverbal mimicry (i.e., becoming dominant) depends on men’s expression of gender discriminatory beliefs, such as hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes.

To develop these arguments, I review theoretical perspectives and findings from previous research examining how gender influences various psychological, cognitive, and

social processes. This dissertation proceeds as follows: I begin by outlining relevant

theory and research on the interpersonal effects of gender stereotypes and gender-based

prejudice, which I use to construct arguments about how sexism will impact men’s

nonverbal behaviors in mixed-gender dyads. I then discuss several theoretical approaches

for understanding women’s behavioral responses to men’s sexism, including social-

cognitive theories of perception and gender-based social learning. I apply these

perspectives to argue why women’s social appraisal of men’s sexism influences their

nonverbal behavior in mixed-gender dyads. I further discuss how men’s simultaneous

coupling of both dominant and affiliative nonverbal cues shifts women’s adoption of

dominance complementarity and nonverbal mimicry. Next, I integrate these arguments

into a conceptual model to illustrate the interpersonal effects of sexism on both men’s and

women’s nonverbal behavior within mixed-gender social interactions. Finally, I test specific propositions and corresponding hypotheses of this model across three empirical studies, and discuss in detail both theoretical and practical implications of the findings, as well as future research directions related to the topics of sexism and social dynamics of nonverbal communication in mixed-gender dyads.

The Social Context of Mixed-Gender Interactions

Previous research on the contextual effects of gender has found that men’s behavior varies widely depending on whether they are engaged in social interactions within a same-gender versus a mixed-gender dyad (Hall & Friedman, 1999; Mast &

Sczesny, 2010). Studies examining mixed-gender settings demonstrate that gender composition of dyads (same vs. mixed) can operate as a significant determinant of how men behave towards their partners in dyadic interactions (Hall, LeBeau, Reinoso, &

Thayer, 2001). These findings point toward the notion that, generally speaking, most men seek to signal their intentions for social affiliation with women and are motivated to treat them in a positive manner. For example, men on average increase their public good contributions when being observed by women versus by other men (Van Vugt & Iredale,

2012). Furthermore, Williams and Polman (2015) found that men’s motivation to display interpersonally sensitive behavior is enhanced when interacting with women, such that

men are more willing to exhibit sensitive behavior towards female colleagues (compared

with male colleagues), and also demonstrate more sensitivity when working in mixed-

gender client teams (compared with same-gender client teams).

Men both consciously and unconsciously use their behavior to signal to women, as well as potentially to other men, various attitudes or social qualities they wish to display, such as altruism or increased social status (Griskevicius et al., 2007). One theoretical explanation for the contextual effects of interaction partner gender is the competitive altruism hypothesis (Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006), which proposes men are motivated to behave altruistically in the presence of women because their niceness creates more opportunities for self-gain versus acting selfishly in these situations.

Women, who are likely accustomed to perceiving and interpreting men’s social behavior as being positive, altruistic, and/or affiliative, may form baseline appraisals that male partners seek to facilitate, or at the very least are neutral for, women’s goal achievement.

However, women also face a multitude of interpersonal risks and negative

consequences within mixed-gender interactions—risks that are comparatively greater than those men face when interacting with women. For instance, women in dyadic romantic relationships are significantly more likely to experience physical or sexual intimate partner violence than men (Coker et al., 2002). Also, because women possess less social power relative to men (Carli, 1999; Eagly & Karau, 1991), men are more likely to sexually harass women than women are to harass men (Gutek & Morasch, 1982) because they have greater opportunity to effectively elicit sexual favors through threats of punishment (coercive power) or promised rewards (reward power; Pryor, 1987). In addition, men may be inclined toward actions that block women’s goal fulfillment; for

example, men are more likely to employ deceptive tactics in mixed-gender negotiations

(Kray, Kennedy, & Van Zant, 2014) and are competitive when negotiating with women than with other men (Ayres & Siegelman, 1995).

Taken together, these findings highlight the complexity of men’s social behavior and intentions toward women within mixed-gender dyads. Men boost their generosity and also display heightened concern and sensitivity when interacting with female partners

(e.g., Van Vogt & Iredale, 2012; Williams & Polman, 2015), but are more willing to deceive women to further their own self-interest (e.g., Kray et al., 2014) and are more likely to behave aggressively toward women in dyadic interactions, such as through sexual harassment or physical and sexual violence (e.g., Gutek & Morasch, 1982; Pryor,

1987). Despite their complexity, processes involving men’s own behaviors have been relatively well-studied; what is less known is how these behaviors, and underlying attitudes, affect the women with whom men interact.

The interaction of men’s and women’s behavior in a dyadic context introduces a dynamic element to mixed-gender social interactions. For instance, men who engage in competitive altruism with women gain an interpersonal advantage for themselves. It may seem as though altruistic treatment would also benefit their female counterparts; however, women who are treated with greater levels of sensitivity, in terms of increased help and/or cooperation resulting from men’s altruism, tend to doubt their own self- competence more (Barretto, Ellemers, Piebinga, & Moya, 2010). Consequently, while men appear to accrue various opportunities for their social group through adaptation of altruistic behavior in mixed-gender interactions, these gains may come at the expense of women because such behavior further entrenches women’s dyadic interdependence on

8 men (Overall, Sibley, & Tan, 2011). Especially given that women face greater interpersonal risks in mixed-gender dyads, women’s accurate appraisal of men’s social behaviors is essential for interpreting men’s intentions. That is to say, women’s appraisal of men’s behavior functions as a vital social mechanism for assessing how such behaviors are likely to affect women’s own interpersonal opportunities and goal accomplishment.

This dissertation examines both men’s nonverbal behaviors—specifically, how men’s attitudes towards women affect their displays on dominance and affiliation dimensions—and women’s behavioral responses to men’s nonverbal cues. A focus on men’s attitudes is important because intergroup attitudes have been shown to be related to various discriminatory behaviors, as for example, modern racism predicts discrimination towards racial outgroup members (Ziegart & Hanges, 2005), and men’s hostile sexist attitudes predict their engagement in sexual harassment behaviors (Begany & Milburn,

2002). In the following sections I outline two broad theoretical perspectives critical for understanding the interpersonal and intrapersonal effects of dyadic partner gender on men’s social behavior: (1) social categorization theories of gender stereotypes; and (2) social-structural theories of sexist ideology. Specifically, I discuss how gender stereotypes affect behavior between men and women at an interpersonal level, and explain how men’s endorsement of sexist attitudes at an intrapersonal level motivates their expression of nonverbal behavior toward women. Because nonverbal cues can function as subtle indicators of dominance and superiority by signaling one’s level of social status and power (e.g., Hall, 1996), I then argue that men’s benevolent and hostile attitudes are associated with their display of dominance and affiliation in mixed-gender

9 social interactions. In subsequent sections, I discuss women’s appraisals of men’s sexist attitudes and resulting effects on their nonverbal responses.

Gender Stereotypes in Mixed-Gender Dyads

In addition to defining the content of gender-stereotypical beliefs (see Kiesler,

1991; Sadler & Woody, 2003), social content theories of categorization (e.g., Fiske,

Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) provide a theoretical foundation for understanding interpersonal effects of the gender stereotypes that men and women possess about each other. These theories argue that social categorization and cognitive sorting of information based on commonalities (e.g., such as age, gender and race) lead people to treat others differently based on the social groups into which they are classified.

Rudman and Phelan (2008) note that categorization-based gender stereotypes are especially powerful in mixed-gender social interactions for two primary reasons: (1) Such processes are easily visible and salient characteristics based on biology; and (2) beliefs about gender are often built on selective information (and even myth) attained across a person’s lifetime.

Gender stereotypes consist of the preconceived notions, attributions, or mental representations about characteristics of a group (Stangor & Schaller, 2000), which affect men’s and women’s interpersonal responses to each other in a social context (Fiske,

2000). Social situations involving mixed-gender dyads tend to accentuate stereotypical behavior (Moskowitz, 1993), as men and women exhibit behaviors consistent with prescriptive gender stereotypes of men being more dominant and task-oriented and women being more friendly and socially-oriented (Rudman & Glick, 2001).

A specific interpersonal context where gender stereotypes often exert strong effects on both men’s and women’s behavior is mixed-gender dyadic negotiations (Bear

& Babcock, 2012; see Bowles & McGinn, 2008, for a review). The stereotypical traits believed by both men and women to characterize ineffective negotiators (i.e., weak, submissive, accommodating, emotional) correspond to typically female traits, whereas those of effective negotiators (i.e., strong, dominant, assertive, rational) correspond to masculine traits (Kray & Thompson, 2005). Such stereotypes affect men’s and women’s engagement in cooperative (e.g., integrative) and competitive (e.g., distributive) social behaviors in mixed-gender dyads (Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001; Kray, Galinsky,

& Thompson, 2002). They also influence a wide range of interpersonal processes (e.g., information exchange, emotional displays, eye gaze, persuasion, misrepresentation) that occur in social negotiations between men and women (Haselhuhn & Kray, 2012; Kolb,

2012; Kray & Thompson, 2005). Men’s endorsement of gender stereotypes can result in their engagement in gender-discriminatory actions and behaviors toward women (Sibley,

Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007); that is, their stereotypes may give rise to attitudes and behaviors that reflect men’s sexism (Fiske, 2000).

Men’s Sexism and Social Dominance

I suggest that men’s sexism could heighten displays of dominance, such as those discussed above, because sexist attitudes are characterized by beliefs and motives that men should exert social dominance and control over women who threaten men’s higher position of social status and power in society (Ridgeway, 2001). A salient dimension of male behavior in mixed-gender dyads is social dominance, which provides men with a

11 behavioral means for asserting control and superiority over others, including women and other men (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001). Past research on the relationships between gender and dominance has shown that women speak less (an indicator of decreased dominance), and are perceived as being less persuasive during interactions with dominant male partners than when interacting with other women (Toosi, Sommers, & Ambady, 2012). In addition, men more frequently display nonverbal cues of dominance than women do in mixed-gender dyadic interactions by exhibiting a higher visual dominance ratio—the ratio of looking at a person while speaking to him/her and looking while listening to him/her (Dovidio et al., 1988). These dynamics likely reflect some men’s underlying beliefs in their own entitlement to greater power and status—that is, entitlement to dominate women. I turn now to a discussion of such sexist beliefs.

According to Glick and Fiske’s (1996) ambivalent sexism theory, sexist attitudes contain components of both hostility and benevolence. Ambivalent sexist attitudes represent a surprising mixture of both hostility (e.g., women should be subjugated) and benevolence (e.g., women should be placed on a pedestal) towards women. Glick and

Fiske (1996) note that men can be high on both types of sexist attitudes, high on benevolent sexism and low on hostile sexism (and vice versa), as well as low on both benevolent and hostile sexism (Glick et al., 2000). For example, men who are high on both hostile and benevolent sexism might believe that they need to dominate women in order to maintain control (e.g., a hostile sexist attitude), while also at the same time treating women favorably because they endorse ideas that such behaviors will create opportunities for heterosexual intimacy (e.g., a benevolent sexist attitude). In addition, whereas men can possess ambivalent sexist attitudes towards women, women themselves

are also prone to endorsing both hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes towards other

women (Sartlet et al., 2012).

Hostile sexism is rooted in men’s beliefs that women lack competence and should

possess lower social status in society than men, whereas benevolent sexism is

characterized by men’s beliefs that women are the “weaker” sex and belong in restricted

roles to serve men’s interests (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Ambivalent sexism theory also

proposes that both types of sexism are characterized by three separate, socially-rooted sources of attitudes towards women: (1) paternalism; (2) gender differentiation; and (3) heterosexuality.

The first source of sexism, paternalism, captures the traditional view that men wield more authority than women, and it is in women’s best interest to defer to this authority. For hostile sexism, dominative paternalism reflects men’s attitudes that women are incompetent and require a superordinate male figure to dominate them. For benevolent sexism, protective paternalism refers to men’s beliefs that they need to protect and provide for women. The second source of sexism, gender differentiation, encompasses views that men and women possess inherently different sex-based characteristics. For hostile sexism, competitive gender differentiation reinforces men’s belief that only their social group possesses traits required for governing and ruling social institutions, whereas, for benevolent sexism, complementary gender differentiation ascribes favorable traits to women based on the view that they compensate for the things that men lack (e.g., sensitivity to others’ feelings, superior taste in fashion, etc.).

The third source of sexism, heterosexuality, is characterized by men’s dependency or reliance on women as members of a subordinate group, to fulfill specific needs related

to men’s self-interests such as achievement of happiness or need to reproduce. For hostile

sexism, heterosexual hostility is based on men’s resentment toward women due to their

dyadic dependence on them for fulfilling important life desires, such as sexual

reproduction and social dominance. In contrast, benevolent sexism is rooted in

heterosexual intimacy, which represents men’s beliefs that women are a necessary means

for achieving motives of interpersonal closeness and sexual intimacy.

These distinct sources of hostile and benevolent sexism may have implications for

discrimination: Men may favor or disfavor particular subgroups of women based on these

dimensions. For example, men may favor women who occupy traditional gender roles

(e.g., stay-at-home wives or homemakers), thereby conforming to the paternalistic and

heterosexual attitudes of benevolence towards women. In contrast, men’s negative views

of women who defy men’s expectations or requirements of women (e.g., feminists) may

lead them to treat such women more negatively than women who do not challenge men’s

expectations (Glick & Fiske, 1996).

Effects of Sexist Attitudes on Men’s Nonverbal Behavior

People’s intergroup attitudes, in addition to being communicated verbally, are

expressed through a variety of nonverbal channels (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992; Harris &

Rosenthal, 1985). For example, results from a meta-analysis of outcomes resulting from

social interactions within interracial dyads show that, on average, the negativity in

people’s nonverbal displays toward other-race interaction partners mirrors their prejudicial attitudes toward different races (Toosi, Babbitt, Ambady, & Sommers, 2012).

Therefore, it seems likely that men’s sexism affects their displays of nonverbal behavior

in mixed-gender interactions.

Substantial research demonstrates that mixed-gender interactions affect the

display and perception of nonverbal behavior (Hall, Coats, & LeBeau, 2005; Hall &

Friedman, 1999; Hall, LeBeau, Reinoso, & Thayer, 2011; Krumhuber, Manstead, &

Kappas, 2007). Previous studies show that men’s nonverbal behavior toward women is

characterized by dominance and nonaffiliation: Men tend to demonstrate more expansive

body postures, and also smile less and gaze at partners for shorter periods of time (see

Mast & Sczesny, 2010, for a review). However, little is known about the extent to which

these behavior patterns are driven by men’s sexist attitudes. I argue that men’s displays of

nonverbal cues in mixed-gender social interactions are motivated by ambivalent forms of

sexist attitudes (i.e., hostile and benevolent) toward women.

In short, men’s hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes toward women convey intentions to dominate and/or affiliate with them. I argue that men’s hostile sexist attitudes foster the display of nonverbal cues expressing dominance and nonaffiliation.

On the other hand, though men’s benevolent sexist attitudes also relate to their nonverbal expression of dominance, they foster positive displays of affiliation toward women. The logic for each of these arguments is as follows.

Men’s hostile sexist beliefs, because they are characterized by men’s antipathy toward women, are likely to be associated with men’s attempts to assert their dominance over women, to maintain and reinforce their greater levels of social power in society.

Considering that hostile sexism has been found to be positively related to men’s social dominance orientation (Hart, Hung, Glick, & Dinero, 2012; Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt,

2007), men’s hostile sexist attitudes are reflective of men’s broader interpersonal

motivations to exert intergroup dominance over women. In particular, the ideology of

hostile sexism is rooted in both dominative paternalism and competitive gender

differentiation¸ whereby men who possess hostile sexist attitudes seek to socially control

and subjugate women. Therefore, men who endorse hostile sexism are expected to

engage in frequent displays of dominance toward women.

In addition to displaying increased dominance to women, hostile sexist men may

also be motivated to nonverbally express more nonaffiliative cues. Expression of

affiliative cues would run counter to men’s feelings of hostility toward women. Women

elicit hostility because hostile sexists seek to protect their high-status group in the social hierarchy, and women are by nature outgroup members who represent threats to men

(Glick & Fiske, 1996). Men’s expression of negative emotions, such as hostility and anger, signals their hesitation to cooperate with women over the long term or in future dyadic interactions (Kopelman, Rosette, & Thompson, 2006). In short, hostile sexism should trigger expression of more nonaffiliative cues because men believe women to be members of an antagonistic group who threaten their standing and with whom cooperative relations are not desired.

Men’s benevolent sexist attitudes are also expected to be related to dominance displays toward women because, even though benevolent sexism is often perceived on the surface as being favorable or flattering (Bohner, Ahlborn, & Steiner, 2010), such sexist attitudes are still underlain by men’s sexist beliefs that they are superior to women

(Glick & Fiske, 1996). Specifically, men’s endorsement of protective paternalism is

based on beliefs that men should protect and provide for women, which motivates men to

impose protective restrictions on women (Sarlet et al., 2012). The paternalistic motive of restricting women, and in the process ensuring their conformity to traditional gender roles, necessitates that men be able to exert social control over women to demonstrate that men are protectors and providers. Men’s dominant behaviors provide a mechanism for exerting such social control (Carli, LaFleur & Loeber, 1995), and as a result, men who endorse benevolent sexist attitudes seek to maintain and reinforce these beliefs by nonverbally expressing their dominance over women in mixed-gender interactions.

Given that benevolent sexism is characterized by men’s positive treatment of

women—as, for example, men’s benevolence elicits their engagement in prosocial,

helping, and/or protecting behaviors toward women (Glick & Fiske, 1996)—men who

endorse benevolent sexist attitudes should exhibit nonverbal behavior signaling their

motives to establish interpersonal affiliation with women in mixed-gender social

interactions. Men who adopt benevolent sexism express benevolence towards women

who fulfill men’s relational needs of both protective paternalism and heterosexual

intimacy. That is, men seek to both protect and foster romantic interdependence with

female partners, both of which depend on women’s cooperation (Sibley & Perry, 2010).

Therefore, benevolent sexism heightens men’s concern with facilitating women’s

formation of positive social impressions about men, and ensuring that women view men

as likeable partners in an effort to generate greater interpersonal rapport and cooperation.

Based on this, men’s endorsement of benevolent sexism is expected to be positively

related to their nonverbal displays of affiliation toward women.

Previous arguments concerning the relationships between men’s hostile and

benevolent sexist attitudes and their display of both dominant and affiliative nonverbal

behavior toward women in mixed-gender social interactions lead to the following

propositions:

Proposition 1a: Men’s displays of dominance towards women in mixed-gender

dyads are related to both hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes.

Proposition 1b: Men’s displays of nonaffiliation towards women in mixed-gender

dyads are related to hostile sexist attitudes.

Proposition 1c: Men’s displays of affiliation towards women in mixed-gender

dyads are related to benevolent sexist attitudes.

Women’s Nonverbal Responses to Men’s Sexism

Expression of nonverbal behavior provides rich social information for individuals to use in making appraisals of others’goals in dyadic social situations (Chartrand &

Bargh, 1999; Chartrand & Lakin, 2013). However, perception and interpretation of nonverbal cues is highly subjective and depends on the appraisals and evaluations individuals use when making social judgments and decisions (Ambady & Weisbuch,

2010; App et al., 2011). When encountering and interacting with dominant men, women

may have to make quick decisions about how to respond behaviorally to interpersonal

dominance displays in ways that would facilitate achievement of their social motives and

goals. That is, women might appraise men’s nonverbal displays of dominance and

affiliation so as to diagnose possible sexist attitudes, which may have implications for

whether men will accommodate or goals.

Nonverbal communication is an integral component in how individuals search for

information to understand others’ interests, goals, and intentions (Mehrabian, 1981).

Cognitive appraisal theories explaining the linkage between emotion and behavior (e.g.,

Lazarus, 1991) predict that individuals try to interpret (or appraise) interpersonal interactions to assess whether their partners’ motives are congruent (i.e., would allow fulfillment) or incongruent (i.e., would block fulfillment) with their own social outcomes.

Drawing from these theories of cognitive appraisals (Blascovich & Mendes, 2000;

Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Tomaka et al., 1993)—which posit that individuals make cognitive appraisals when evaluating perceptions of risk, uncertainty, and danger—I argue that women may appraise men’s nonverbal cues in mixed-gender interactions to diagnose potential hostile or benevolent sexist attitudes, given the likelihood that such attitudes will affect women’s ability to fulfill their own behaviors or social outcomes.

Taking into account the previous proposition that men’s hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes influence their displays of nonverbal behaviors toward women, I further unpack how the presence of information diagnostic of men’s sexism might uniquely influence women’s adoption of nonverbal mimicry and dominance complementarity in mixed-gender social interactions. That is, men’s expression of sexist attitudes consistent with their display of dominant and affiliative nonverbal cues toward women may alter the direction of relationships between men’s nonverbal behavior and women’s own nonverbal responses. Though a precise test of mechanism is beyond the scope of this dissertation, my predictions about mixed-gender dynamics involving men’s sexism, men’s nonverbal dominance and affiliation, and women’s responses, are grounded in specific arguments that are developed in the next section. Furthermore, I argue women will either mimic or complement men’s dominance and affiliation, depending on whether

19 men express hostile sexism (with nonaffiliative cues) or benevolent sexism (with affiliative cues).

Approaches for Understanding Women’s Appraisals of Sexism

Women may seek to appraise behaviors or cues that signal men’s sexist attitudes because sexism can function as a direct source of facilitation or blockage of women’s facilitation or blockage of goals to behave as and achieve the outcomes that they desire.

For example, hostile sexism might sometimes motivate men to block women’s achievement of such outcomes so as to protect men’s high-status group position in society. Conversely, benevolent sexism might lead men to facilitate women’s ability to behave as and achieve their desired outcomes because cooperation with women helps to fulfill men’s own relational needs (e.g., protective paternalism and/or heterosexual intimacy). Thus, whether a man’s dominance stems from hostile or benevolent sexism may have direct implications for women’s ability to realize desired outcomes and behaviors, and so women might be expected to appraise cues that may be diagnostic of men’s sexism and then to respond appropriately.

The threat/challenge theory of cognitive appraisal (Blascovich & Mendes, 2000;

Tomaka, Blascovich, Kelsey, & Leitten, 1993) is useful for understanding how women might respond to men’s sexism in mixed-gender dyads through their appraisals of various elements of men’s social behavior, including risk, uncertainty, and danger. Specifically, challenge appraisals are based on an individual’s perception of interpersonal risk does not exceed one’s perception of abilities or resources that can be used to cope with the situation. Challenge appraisals generate awareness of the possibility that there may be

something to gain from a social interaction, and therefore are goal-facilitating. Women who perceive men’s benevolent sexism may make a challenge appraisal because they believe they will have the resources needed (e.g., men’s intentions to cooperate) to achieve their own desired outcomes.

On the other hand, threat appraisals represent an individual’s perception that interpersonal risk exceeds one’s perception of abilities or resources that can be used to manage the situation. Threat appraisals raise awareness there may be a strong likelihood of loss, and are inherently blocking of one’s desired outcomes. Women who perceive men’s hostile sexism may make a threat appraisal if they perceive that their resources will be insufficient to overcome the threat represented by men’s intentions to potentially block women’s ability to behave as and achieve the outcomes that they desire.

In addition to applying cognitive appraisal theories, I outline in the following sections two theoretical perspectives for understanding the ways in which women respond to men’s sexism in mixed-gender social interactions. If women do indeed make appraisals of men’s attitudes and behaviors, women could respond with their own interpersonal behavior. Therefore, I present two perspectives on how this appraisal process might impact women’s nonverbal behavior. First, I rely on cooperation theory

(Deutsch & Krauss, 1962) to argue that women’s appraisals of benevolent and hostile sexist attitudes are likely to depend on their perceptions of how men’s social intentions toward women are influenced by sexism. Second, I draw from both social learning theory

(Box, 1984) and social role theory (Eagly, 1987) to offer a potential explanation for how gender-specific socialization processes contribute to learned patterns in women’s responses to men’s sexism.

Social-cognitive perception of sexism. I argue that women’s appraisal of men’s sexist attitudes may be an important determinant of women’s behavioral responses to male counterparts’ expressions of sexism. For instance, women’s conscious perception of men’s sexist attitudes as being explicitly discriminatory can alter their social responses to sexism: When gender discrimination against women is made salient, women respond with negative affect and behavioral reactance toward men’s sexist treatment (Becker &

Wright, 2011); however, when gender-discriminatory behaviors manifest in a more subtle manner, as with benevolent sexism which can appear harmless, welcoming, and even appealing, women experience decreased negative behavioral reactance (Dardenne,

Dumont, & Bollier, 2007). These findings would support the notion that women will respond with increased reactance to men’s hostile sexism, through becoming more behaviorally dominant themselves, and in addition, women will react to men’s benevolent sexism by becoming more submissive.

Cooperation theory (Deutsch & Krauss, 1962) informs how appraisal of men’s sexism might affect women’s interpersonal behavior, as it proposes that social interactions can be evaluated according to how people perceive their own goals as being related to another person’s goals. According to Cooperation theory, at a basic level, dyadic cooperation signals that people perceive there to be positive outcome interdependence; that is, attainment of one person’s desired outcomes will facilitate his/her partner’s outcomes. Appraising information about men’s benevolent sexism would be useful for women in that such cognitive processes draw their attention toward the potential positive benefits, rather than the negative implications, of cooperating with men who express benevolence and protective paternalistic behavior. Women may be

motivated to consciously search for social information that is relevant for perceiving men

as being benevolently sexist because it signals potential fulfillment of women’s ability to

behave as and achieve the outcomes that they desire. Therefore, women could improve

their outcomes when interacting with benevolent sexists, by refraining from challenging

dominance (thus reducing harsh responses) and appearing to conform to prescribed

gender stereotypes (thus increasing their access to resources).

Women may also be motivated to seek information that would be indicative of

men’s hostile sexist attitudes. According to Cooperation theory, dyadic competition

implies that people perceive their desired outcomes as being negatively linked to each

other, whereby movement towards one person’s outcomes blocks fulfillment of his/her

partner’s outcomes. Therefore, women might be motivated to evaluate information

relevant to hostile sexism because it signals men likely intend on blocking women’s

outcomes. As a result, women may become more competitive with men because they

perceive hostile sexist attitudes to be incongruent with their ability to behave as and

achieve the outcomes that they desire.

Gender-based socialization and social learning. Women’s appraisals of men’s

sexism depend not only on decoding of social information, but also on socialization

processes involving learned information about gender-based social roles and norms.

Specifically, social role theory (Eagly, 1987) proposes that cultural stereotypes dictate the social roles and behaviors appropriate to women in our society. When extended to mixed- gender dyadic contexts, this theory helps to explain why women are typically more motivated than men to form and preserve social relationships—because such a focus is

consistent with their culturally-prescribed roles (Amanatullah, Morris, & Curhan, 2008).

Women learn early in childhood to develop feminine orientations toward social

relationships that align with the notion of communality, such as having a high concern for

and being accommodating to others. Feminine social orientations in mixed-gender dyads

would lead women to be more attuned to social information that reflects affiliative

interpersonal motives, such as nonverbal cues of smiling, head nodding, and other

affiliative behavior. In contrast, men learn to develop masculine social orientations based

around agency, such as having motives for demonstrating one’s assertiveness and self-

confidence in social interactions with women (e.g., Bakan, 1966; see Abele & Wojciszke,

2014, for a review).

Across their lifespan, women learn to follow social roles for managing culturally- appropriate impressions within mixed-gender dyads. One specific impression management strategy women utilize is avoidance of violating normative gender role prescriptions for their social behavior, for fear of eliciting negative “backlash” from others (Amantullah & Morris, 2010). That is, women are prescribed to be more attuned to and concerned with the expression and detection of affiliative motives in mixed-gender dyads, which is congruent with the female gender stereotype of communality (Baumeister

& Leary, 1995). Men who endorse benevolent sexism reward women who conform to traditional social roles that serve men, particularly through affiliative behaviors, such as expressing affection, providing access to resources, and offering protection. Indeed, women who align their social behavior with gender roles are more successful in terms of their effectiveness with utilizing social influence tactics that prioritize affiliation, and subsequently correspond to communal stereotypes about women’s gender role in society

(Smith et al., 2013).

Similar to differences between feminine and masculine orientations, social roles

for men and women establish learned attitudes about dominance (Eagly & Wood, 1999).

At baseline, women are less socially dominant (Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1994), less

assertive (Feingold, 1994), and less interpersonally aggressive (Hyde, 1984) than men.

As such, gender roles dictate when it is appropriate for men and women to behave

dominantly in social interactions (Poteat, Espelage, & Green, 2007). Expressions of

dominance serve as an important tool to protect and reinforce men’s high-status group

position in society; women who challenge men’s dominance risk provoking a harsh response and negative consequences. This may be especially true if the man in question is a hostile sexist; further, such men’s hostility toward women offers little hope for an alternative strategy for the woman to secure better outcomes. Taking into account the importance of dominance in prescriptions about gender role behaviors, women might be

motivated to focus on social information related to men’s dominance in mixed-gender

interactions because they are expected to behave less dominantly and must be vigilant to

guard against men’s social dominance.

Another potential rationale for women’s socialization to men’s sexism is based on

social learning theory (Box, 1984), which is defined as, “learning that is influenced by

observation of or interaction with another individual” (Poulin-Dubois & Brosseau-Liard,

2016, p. 60). Social learning occurs throughout the lifespan, as men and women learn

from their interactions with peer groups to develop unique social strategies for enacting

and responding to social processes—such as processes involving dominance in mixed- gender interactions (see Hawley, 1999, for a review). Consequently, these social learning mechanisms lead men and women to acquire different default responses to dominance

25 displays based on the group roles and norms dictated by their gender-based social identities. For instance, men may be socialized to respond to interpersonal dominance with their own dominance displays, whereas women might be more inclined to acquiesce to dominance and respond with submissive social behaviors.

Together, social role and social learning theories offer possible explanations for how women’s cognitive appraisals of men’s sexism in mixed-gender dyads are influenced by habituation and socialization to gender-normative interpersonal orientations, prescriptive social roles, and men’s dominance displays.

Summary

The cognitive appraisals that women construct in relation to men’s expression of sexist attitudes in mixed-gender interactions could potentially have significant consequences for how they respond to men’s nonverbal behavior. Such appraisal processes in mixed-gender interactions are expected to be especially influenced when affiliative and dominance cues are paired with social information that is diagnostic about men’s hostile and benevolent sexism. Specifically, the presence of hostile sexist information conveyed by men may lead women to appraise men’s nonverbal behavior as blocking their ability to behave as and achieve the outcomes that they desire or even as potential direct physical threats; and therefore, could result in women responding with nonverbal behavior that mimics men’s dominance and nonaffiliation. However, if such sexist information conveys men’s intentions to affiliate and agree with women, as is the case with benevolent sexism, then women might be expected to respond with nonverbal behaviors signaling their affiliation toward male partners. In addition, the expression of

men’s benevolent sexist attitudes in combination with their nonverbal cues of dominance and affiliation may lead women to become more complementary to men’s dominance displays (i.e., women become more submissive).

Proposition 2: The interpersonal effects of men’s nonverbal behavior on women’s

nonverbal mimicry and complementarity depends on men’s expression of sexist

attitudes and how women appraise such sexist information.

Interpersonal Dynamics of Dominance Complementarity

and Mimicry in Mixed-Gender Interactions

In the following sections, I explain how the dynamics of complementarity and mimicry are relevant for explaining women’s nonverbal responses to men’s simultaneous coupling of both control (i.e., dominant vs. submissive) and affiliative (i.e., agreeable vs. quarrelsome) cues. Building on Proposition 2, I now focus on the ways in which women respond to men’s nonverbal displays of dominance and submissiveness when such behavior is coupled with either affiliative or nonaffiliative cues. Specifically, I review past literature examining nonverbal mimicry and dominance complementarity to illustrate how these dynamics are relevant for explaining women’s nonverbal responses to men’s simultaneous coupling of control (i.e., dominant vs. submissive) and affiliative (i.e., agreeable) or nonaffiliative (i.e., quarrelsome) nonverbal cues.

Women’s Behavioral Responses to Men’s Nonverbal Cues Dominance complementarity. In the literature on dynamics of human nonverbal behavior, postural expansion has been equated with the expression of dominance, whereas postural constriction is linked to expressions of submissiveness (Kiesler, 1983;

1991; Tiedens & Fragale, 2003; Tiedens et al., 2007). The interpersonal dynamic of complementarity suggests that people interact with others in a complementary manner, such as becoming submissive in response to dominance (Tiedens & Fragale, 2003).

Dominance complementarity in behavior on the dimension of control (i.e., dominance through postural expansion vs. submissiveness through postural constriction) increases comfort and social liking in dyadic interactions (Dryer & Horowitz, 1997; Tiedens &

Fragale, 2003). Dominance complementarity is a desirable interpersonal dynamic because it allows partners to more effectively navigate social hierarchies in relationships by facilitating efficient adoption of dominant and submissive positions in dyadic interactions (Locke & Sadler, 2007). Since dominance communicates people’s intention to exert agency and/or control over others, in contrast to dominance complementarity, mimicry of dominance has negative interpersonal implications and often generates greater levels of dyadic conflict because it interferes with attainment of partners’ social motives (Horowitz et al., 2006; Tiedens & Fragale, 2003). Women who complement their male partners’ dominant body posture, by expressing submissiveness in response to dominance, would experience greater levels of interpersonal comfort and liking from their interaction partner (e.g., Tiedens et al., 2007). Conversely, women’s nonverbal mimicry of men’s dominance displays would elicit greater interpersonal conflict within mixed-gender interactions.

Nonverbal mimicry. Findings from research in social psychology offer substantial empirical evidence that people frequently mimic their partners’ nonverbal behavior in dyadic social interactions (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Chartrand & van

Baaren, 2009; van Baaren et al., 2006). Oftentimes, mimicry occurs unintentionally and

can affect interpersonal behaviors by altering the display of nonverbal cues without

people’s conscious awareness (e.g., Ambady & Weisbuch, 2010; Chartrand & Bargh,

1999). The interpersonal dynamic of behavioral mimicry in social interactions occurs

when two people exhibit identical behaviors simultaneously (Chartrand & Lakin, 2013).

Behavioral mimicry, also defined as “behavioral mirroring” (Sanchez-Burks, Bartel, &

Blount, 2009), refers to copying of facial expressions, body postures, hand gestures, and other forms of motor movements. Mimicry is manifested through a variety of nonverbal behaviors, including body postures (Tiedens & Fragale, 2003), face rubbing and touching

(Lakin & Chartrand, 2003), facial expressions (Stel & van Knippenberg, 2008), and yawning (Helt, Eigsti, Snyder, & Fein, 2010).

Mimicry of certain nonverbal behaviors has several social and interpersonal advantages within dyadic interactions (see Chartrand & Lakin, 2013, for a review).

Specifically, mimicry of nonverbal behaviors on the affiliation dimension conveying positively-valenced social cues (e.g., smiling, gesturing, etc.) is related to people’s relational motives of cooperation and friendliness (e.g., Cesario, Plaks, & Higgins, 2006;

Dijksterhuis et al., 1998). Priming unconscious affiliation goals of agreeableness leads people to more frequently engage in mimicry of task partners (Lakin & Chartrand, 2003).

Additionally, nonverbal mimicry of positive affiliative nonverbal behaviors (i.e., agreeableness) can amplify prosocial and cooperative behavior, as for example, mimicry in social interactions increases the likelihood of partners subsequently engaging in altruistic behaviors (van Barren, Holland, Kawakami, & van Knippenberg, 2004).

Furthermore, ingroup members tend to be mimicked more than outgroup members in social interactions (Bourgeois & Hess, 2008), which suggests that nonverbal mimicry is,

in part, influenced by the intergroup context of relations between ingroup and outgroup

members.

While the positive relational outcomes resulting from mimicry of affiliative cues

(e.g., greater liking, trust, and rapport) are based on people’s desire for and liking of

similarity in others (Chartrand & Lakin, 2013), it may be an entirely different story when

people mimic nonaffiliative cues (i.e., frowning, eye rolling, averting eye gaze, etc.).

While women use cognitive appraisals in assessing the positive social attributes of

unfamiliar male interaction partners (e.g., agreeableness, friendliness, cooperativeness),

they must also appraise possible negative attributes of their interaction partners (e.g.,

quarrelsomeness, disagreeableness, hostility, etc.) because men can pose legitimate social

threats. People possess an inherent social need for relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000),

which fosters cooperative and reciprocal social behaviors with others (Jia, Lee, & Tong,

2015; Molm, Whitman, & Melamed, 2012). As a result, individuals tend to mimic affiliative cues of their interaction partners to establish greater interpersonal rapport

(Cheng & Chartrand, 2003; Lakin & Chartrand, 2003). That is, partners’ nonverbal behaviors signal a willingness to allow fulfillment of relational motives, and actors tend to display affiliative nonverbal cues toward their partner in return.

If men’s facial expressions (or other displays) convey less-agreeable emotions, they nonverbally communicate nonaffiliation toward women, which may also signal their opposition to cooperating with women in dyadic interactions (Kopelman, Rosette, &

Thompson, 2006). While the default mode of appraisals is to search for positive social information, consequences of the negativity bias (e.g., Cacioppo & Berntson, 1994)—and the accompanying acceleration of the evaluative process for negative social

information—may result in women engaging in mimicry of nonaffiliation because they view male partners’ nonverbal behavior as blocking their own goals and signaling men’s intention of creating interpersonal conflict. As a result, women who interact with male partners displaying such nonaffiliative nonverbal cues would be expected themselves to engage in mimicry of men’s nonaffiliation, and thus display quarrelsome nonverbal cues toward men.

Previous research examining women’s nonverbal responses to men’s displays of nonaffiliative cues shows that women mimic men’s displays of nonaffiliative nonverbal cues (i.e., frowning), as over time women subsequently exhibit greater levels of frowning following men’s displays of such nonverbal cues (de Lemus et al., 2012). In particular, these findings suggest that women adjust their nonverbal behaviors to assimilate to men’s nonaffiliation toward women by reciprocating the exchange of nonaffiliative cues— essentially, engaging in nonverbal mimicry of men’s nonaffiliative cues. Together, the

interpersonal dynamics of both dominance and mimicry provide structured approaches

for understanding the patterns of nonverbal communication of dominance and affiliation

in mixed-gender dyads.

Parallel coupling of dominant and affiliative nonverbal cues. The effects of men’s dominance displays on women’s nonverbal responses of mimicry or complementarity may be significantly affected by whether or not such displays are coupled with affiliative (e.g., agreeableness) or nonaffiliative cues (e.g., quarrelsomeness). The valence of men’s facial expressions signaling either affiliation

(e.g., positive cues such as smiling) or nonaffiliation (e.g., negative cues such as frowning) is likely to be an important determinant of women’s nonverbal reactions to

male dominance in mixed-gender interactions.

A useful framework for conceptualizing differential effects resulting from men’s nonverbal expression of affiliative and nonaffiliative cues is the Emotions as Social

Information Model (EASI; van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2010). The EASI model asserts that emotional displays in dyadic contexts function as important nonverbal signals for individuals to make social decisions by strategically inferring information about their partners’ intentions and goals. Specifically, this model distinguishes between positive emotions signaling affiliation and opportunity for potential goal accomplishment (e.g., happiness, joy, contentment), and negative emotions signaling nonaffiliation and possibilities for goal blockage (e.g., anger, frustration, irritation). The model also argues that social signals of affiliation lead people to move towards each other through cooperative behaviors to mutually achieve interpersonal motives; however, social cues of dominance lead people to move against or move away from each other through

competitive behaviors such as refusing to make compromises or pursuing self-interests.

According to the EASI model, men’s display of positive affiliative cues would lead women to move towards their male partners and engage in nonverbal mimicry.

Indeed, research has found that people’s desire to develop and sustain cooperative and comfortable social relations with partners leads to assimilation effects on affiliative behavior as the result of nonverbal mimicry (Cesario, Plaks, & Higgins, 2006;

Dijksterhuis et al., 1998). Similarly, the EASI model would also explain that men’s display of negative emotional cues signaling nonaffiliative social motives would lead women to move against or move away from male partners by mimicking such nonverbal cues. Therefore, I argue that women will mimic men’s nonverbal affiliation regardless of

whether such cues express positive social motives of affiliation or negative motives of

nonaffiliation.

Within the context of mixed-gender interactions, how might men’s display of

nonverbal cues signaling together both affiliation (i.e., friendliness) and control over

women (i.e., dominance) affect women’s nonverbal adoption of mimicry and/or

complementarity? Previous research provides an initial starting point to answer this

question by demonstrating that dominance tends to elicit submissiveness (and vice versa)

in same-gender dyads (Tiedens & Fragale, 2003; Tiedens et al., 2007; Wiltermuth,

Tiedens, & Neale, 2015), although these studies did not address the effects of these

nonverbal dynamics within mixed-gender social interactions. Moreover, research on women’s nonverbal responses to men’s dominance displays suggests that women’s adoption of nonverbal complementarity or mimicry is conditional on men’s parallel coupling of nonverbal cues on dimensions of dominance and affiliation (de Lemus et al.,

2012). However, these studies manipulated affiliative cues by having male confederates

display either smiling or nonsmiling, which critically does not directly address how

men’s display of positive affiliative cues (i.e., smiling) and overtly nonaffiliative cues

(i.e., frowning) affects women’s nonverbal behavior.

In spite of this limitation, the results of de Lemus and colleagues’ (2012) studies

reveal important findings about women’s responses to men’s nonverbal displays of

dominance when coupled with cues signaling men’s positive intentions of affiliation with

women. Specifically, this research on “sexism with a smile” demonstrates that women

more frequently engage in dominance complementarity and become submissive when

men’s displays of dominance through their overt sexism are paired with affiliative

33 nonverbal cues (i.e., smiling). Additionally, results of this research also show that women are more resistant to complementing men’s dominance, and adopt more dominant postures themselves, when men’s dominance is displayed alongside neutral nonverbal affiliative cues (i.e., nonsmiling).

Therefore, these effects of dominance mimicry on women’s nonverbal behavior are likely to be especially pronounced when men’s dominance is displayed in combination with salient nonaffiliative cues (e.g., frowning, eye rolling, etc.). For instance, women would adjust their nonverbal behaviors accordingly by mimicking men’s dominance and reciprocating the exchange of nonaffiliative cues towards men. As a result of this dynamic, I argue that women will be more likely to engage in nonverbal mimicry of their male counterpart’s dominance when men’s dominance is displayed together with nonaffiliative, rather than with affiliative, nonverbal cues. Furthermore, I also predict that women will be more likely to complement men’s dominance (and become submissive) when dominance is accompanied by nonverbal cues expressing men’s positive affiliation with women. This prediction builds on the results of prior studies (e.g., de Lemus et al., 2012) demonstrating that dominance complementarity in women’s nonverbal behaviors is amplified by men’s expression of cues signaling their social motives of affiliation.

These findings would provide support for the prediction that not only does men’s dominance lead to contrast effects in women’s nonverbal responses, such as women’s adoption of submissiveness through dominance complementarity, but it may also influence women’s nonverbal behavior through assimilation effects on both dominance- related and affiliative nonverbal behaviors, such as through women’s mimicry of men’s

dominance and displays of both affiliative and nonaffiliative cues toward male interaction

partners.

Summary

The previous arguments regarding women’s mimicry and complementarity of

men’s concurrent displays of dominance and affiliation qualify the linkages between

men’s nonverbal behavior and women’s nonverbal responses in mixed-gender social

interactions. Specifically, the argued effects of men’s display of dominance coupled with

affiliative nonverbal cues on women’s adoption of mimicry and/or complementarity lead

to the following propositions:

Proposition 3a: The coupling of men’s dominant and affiliative nonverbal cues

influences women’s behavioral mimicry of affiliation.

Proposition 3b: The coupling of men’s dominant and affiliative nonverbal cues

influences women’s adoption of dominance complementarity and mimicry.

The sets of theoretical propositions previously specified in Chapter 1 are integrated into a

conceptual model outlining the interpersonal dynamics of nonverbal behavior in mixed-

gender social interactions (see Figure 1). This model is applied in Chapter 2 to develop

hypotheses about relationships between men’s hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes and their display of nonverbal cues towards women, as well to hypothesize about effects of men’s expressions of sexism, dominance, and affiliation on women’s adoption of dominance complementarity and mimicry in mixed-gender dyads.

Next, I outline research methodology for a set of studies that I conducted to examine how men’s benevolent and hostile sexism relates to their display of nonverbal

35 cues, and also how women respond behaviorally to men’s expression of sexist attitudes accompanied by their displays of nonverbal behavior on dimensions of dominance and affiliation. Finally, the aforementioned hypotheses are empirically tested across three studies, and the results from each study are also reported in Chapter 2. Findings of these studies provide detailed insight into the interplay between men’s endorsement of sexist attitudes and their display of nonverbal cues towards women in mixed-gender dyads.

Furthermore, results also offer a more comprehensive understanding of the ways in which sexism affects interpersonal dynamics involved in men’s and women’s nonverbal communication within mixed-gender social interactions.

(P1a-c) (P3a-b) Men’s Sexist Men’s Display of Women’s Nonverbal Mimicry Attitudes Nonverbal Cues and Complementarity

(P2)

Men’s Expression of Sexism toward Women

Figure 1: Conceptual model with theoretical propositions illustrating linkages between men’s sexism and both men’s and women’s nonverbal behavior in mixed-gender dyads.

CHAPTER 2

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND STUDY RESULTS

To examine the propositions argued for in Chapter 1, I develop three sets of hypotheses about how men’s sexism relates to their display of nonverbal cues, and how women respond to men’s sexist attitudes and adjust their nonverbal behaviors on the dimensions of dominance and affiliation in mixed-dyads. I empirically test these hypotheses across three studies, including two online experiments and one laboratory experiment. Study 1 tests hypotheses concerning how men’s hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes are related to their display of dominance and affiliation towards women. Study 2 assesses the predictions related to how the presence of sexist information about a male interaction partner moderates the effects of complementarity and mimicry on women’s nonverbal dominance and affiliation. Study 3 experimentally tests the hypotheses about the interpersonal effects of men’s affiliative cues on women’s complementarity and mimicry when such cues are displayed with dominance or submissiveness.

Study 1 examined the relationships between men’s endorsement of hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes and their propensity to display dominance and affiliation in mixed-gender interactions. Specifically, male participants were asked to imagine interacting with a female coworker, and then reported how much dominance and affiliation they would express during their imagined social interaction. Study 2

37 investigated women’s nonverbal responses to men’s nonverbal cues and sexist attitudes by having participants first view a photograph of their male interaction partner, and then imagine how they might behave when interacting with him within the social context of a negotiation. Specifically, these photographs manipulated both men’s display of affiliative versus nonaffialitive cues and dominance cues, alongside their expression of sexism versus no sexism towards women.

Study 3 involved face-to-face mixed-gender social interactions, and manipulated the display of different combinations of dominance and affiliation through the use of a male confederate. In Study 3, women completed a picture description task with a male partner in which partners described two pictures to each other in an alternating order.

These interactions were videotaped and women’s adoption of complementarity and mimicry in their nonverbal behaviors was assessed by two trained coders, who measured women’s dominance through their body postures and affiliation through the frequency of affiliative and nonaffiliative cues they expressed during the task. Together, these three studies offer a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of nonverbal communication among men and women, and how men’s sexism impacts mixed-gender social interactions at both an intrapersonal and interpersonal level.

Study 1: Relationships Between Men’s Sexism and Expressions

of Dominance and Affiliation Towards Women

The purpose of Study 1 was to examine the nature of the relationships among men’s sexist attitudes and their willingness to express dominance and affiliation towards women. As discussed when developing Propositions 1a-c, men’s displays of nonverbal

cues towards women in mixed-gender dyads are influenced by their sexist attitudes about women’s gender-specific roles and social status in society. Consistent with this logic of

Propositions 1a-c, I hypothesize the following predictions regarding the relationships between men’s sexist attitudes and their nonverbal behaviors in mixed-gender dyadic

social interactions:

Hypothesis 1a: Men’s hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes are positively

related to their displays of dominance towards women.

Hypothesis 1b: Men’s hostile sexist attitudes are negatively related to their

displays of affiliative nonverbal cues towards women.

Hypothesis 1c: Men’s benevolent sexist attitudes are positively related to their

displays of affiliative nonverbal cues towards women.

Method

Participants. Based on the results of a priori power analyses using G*Power

3.1.9 (ANOVA: fixed, main, and interaction effects; effect size: f = .20; α error

probability = .05, power = .95, numerator df = 1, number of groups = 2), 327 adult male

participants were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk website. Participants who

completed the study received a nominal monetary payment ($0.75) in exchange for their

participation. The mean age of participants was 30.6 years (SD = 9 years) and 75.8%

identified as White, 5.2% as African American, 12.2% as Asian, 6.1% as Hispanic, 0.3%

as Native American, and 0.3% as other ethnicities.

Design and procedure. Study 1 consisted of a single factor between-subjects

design with interaction partner gender (male vs. female) as the between-subjects

manipulated independent variable. After clicking on the survey link through Amazon’s

Mechanical Turk website, participants who gave their informed consent began the study.

Participants were instructed to imagine themselves in a situation in which they are going

to interact with either a male coworker (Steve) or female coworker (Susan). Specifically,

participants were asked to read the following scenario about their interactions with a

colleague in their workplace:

Imagine that you work as an employee in a small marketing firm. One day after eating lunch in the office break room, you run into one of your coworkers, (Steve/Susan) in the hallway. Take a few moments to think about how you would feel or what you would be thinking in this situation if you were to interact with (Steve/Susan). Upon reading this paragraph, participants were then asked to fill out a questionnaire

based on their thoughts and feelings about the imagined social interaction described in

the scenario they previously read. This questionnaire contained self-report measures of dominance and affiliation described in detail below, followed by the measure of men’s sexist attitudes.

Measures

Participants completed the following measures upon reading about the social interactions with their partner depicted in the scenario.

Dominance and affiliation. Men’s propensity to engage in control-related (i.e., dominance) and affiliative nonverbal behaviors toward women was assessed through a self-report questionnaire. Specifically, participants completed a modified version of the

Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS; Richmond, McCroskey, & Johnson, 2003), which measures how likely men are to exhibit specific nonverbal behaviors reflecting

40 dominance and affiliation (see Appendix B, p. 97). Items for both indices of dominance and affiliation were rated based on the likelihood that participants would exhibit such nonverbal behaviors in the imagined social interaction with either men or women on a 7- point scale (1 = extremely unlikely to 7 = extremely likely). Participants’ self-ratings for these indices were used to create composite measures of men’s nonverbal dominance and affiliation.

Sexist attitudes. Men’s sexism was measured using Glick and Fiske’s (1996)

Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI), which contains two subscales assessing hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes (see Appendix A). Participants were asked to self-report their level of agreement using a 6-point response scale (0 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) to statements expressing both hostile sexism (e.g., “when women lose to men in fair competition, they typically complain about being discriminated against”) and benevolent sexism (e.g., “women should be cherished and protected by men”).

Demographics. Several questions assessed various dimensions of demographic information, including age, gender, education level, and work experience, which allowed me to report descriptive statistics for the overall sample of participants.

Results and Discussion

Composite indices were first created by averaging responses for all scales, which included measures of benevolent sexism (α = .86) and hostile sexism (α = .85) from the

ASI, and aggregate measures of men’s nonverbal dominance (α = .68) and nonverbal affiliation (α = .69). To test Hypothesis 1a, I conducted two linear regression models with measures of benevolent sexist and hostile sexist attitudes as a single predictor variable

and the composite measure of nonverbal dominance as the dependent variable in both

models. Results of these models offered partial support for Hypothesis 1a, as hostile sexism was found to be positively related to men’s nonverbal expression of dominance towards a female coworker, B = .22, SE = .09, t(164) = 2.59, p = .01, R = .46, 95% CI

[.07, .34], whereas benevolent sexism was not significantly associated with men’s nonverbal dominance towards a female coworker, B = .03, SE = .061 t(164) = 0.46, p =

.649, R = .17, 95% CI [-.09, .15].

Next, benevolent sexism and hostile sexism were included as single predictor variables in separate linear regression models, with the composite measure of nonverbal affiliation as the dependent variable in both models. Consistent with Hypothesis 1b, men’s hostile sexist attitudes were negatively related to their expression of nonverbal affiliation towards a female coworker, B = -.16, SE = .05, t(164) = -2.92, p = .004, R =

.40, 95% CI [-.26, -.05]. Furthermore, as predicted by Hypothesis 1c, men’s benevolent sexist attitudes were positively related to their expression of nonverbal affiliation towards a female coworker, B = .21, SE = .05, t(164) = 4.22, p < .001, R = .45, 95% CI [.11, .30].

Exploratory analyses were then conducted to investigate whether there were significant differences in men’s expressions of nonverbal dominance and affiliation when interacting with a female coworker (mixed-gender context) versus when interacting with a male coworker (same-gender context). I conducted separate one-way ANOVA models, with coworker gender (male vs. female) as the independent between-subjects factor and nonverbal dominance and affiliation as dependent variables in separate models. Results of these models revealed that men reported experiencing more nonverbal dominance when imagining they were interacting with a male coworker (M = 4.46, SD = .71) versus

when interacting with a female coworker (M = 4.16, SD = .89), F(1, 322) = 11.33, p =

.001, η2 = .03. In addition, men expressed less nonverbal affiliation when imagining they

were interacting with a male coworker (M = 4.98, SD = .69) versus with a female

coworker (M = 5.26, SD = .77), F(1, 322) = 11.62, p = .001, η2 = .03. Together, this

pattern of results suggest that men express varying amounts of nonverbal dominance and

affiliation depending on whether they are expecting to interact with a coworker within a

same-gender versus a mixed-gender social context.

Overall, results from Study 1 provide empirical evidence for Propositions 1a-c by demonstrating that men’s sexist attitudes are associated with their nonverbal expressions of dominance and affiliation towards women. Specifically, findings support predictions of Hypotheses 1a and 1b by showing that hostile sexist attitudes are positively related to men’s nonverbal displays of dominance, and are negatively related to men’s nonverbal

affiliation towards women. In contrast to Hypothesis 1a, benevolent sexism was not

significantly associated with men’s dominance displays in mixed-gender social

interactions. However, as predicted by Hypothesis 1c benevolent sexist attitudes were

positively related to men’s displays of affiliation towards women. Finally, exploratory

analyses indicated men differed in their displays of dominant and affiliative nonverbal

behaviors depending on whether they expected to socially interact with either a female or

male coworker.

Findings from Study 1 shed light on how men’s sexist attitudes are related to their

propensity to express nonverbal dominance and affiliation toward women in mixed-

gender social interactions. In particular, men’s sexism characterized by benevolence is

generally associated with increased willingness to be agreeable, friendly, and warm

43 towards women, which is an effective way for men to establish interpersonal rapport through affiliative nonverbal behaviors. On the other hand, hostile forms of sexism are positively related to men’s dominance displays and negatively related to their expression of affiliative nonverbal cues. These results highlighting relationships between men’s sexism and nonverbal behavior mirror those found in other research with one important exception: Goh and Hall (2015) did not find that either benevolent or hostile sexism predicted men’s nonverbal displays of dominance, whereas evidence from the current study shows that men’s expression of dominance towards women in hypothetical mixed- gender interactions was positively associated with their hostile sexist attitudes. This finding would suggest that hostile sexism does indeed go hand-in-hand with men’s dominance displays, as together they provide men with both an attitudinal (i.e., hostile sexism) and a behavioral (i.e., nonverbal dominance displays) means to assert their social power and control over women in society.

Results of Study 1 outline a blueprint of the nonverbal behaviors sexist men may utilize to subtly communicate their gender discriminatory attitudes towards women. An important next step would be to understand how women behaviorally respond through their own body language to men’s dominant and affiliative nonverbal cues. Therefore, the goal of Study 2 was to extend these findings by manipulating both men’s display of affiliative nonverbal cues and their expression of sexist attitudes in order to examine women’s nonverbal responses to men’s affiliation and sexism.

Study 2: Women’s Behavioral Responses to Men’s Nonverbal

Cues Displayed With Sexist Attitudes

Study 1 demonstrated that men’s sexist attitudes are related to their expression of nonverbal dominance and affiliation towards women in hypothetical mixed-gender social interactions. Extending the arguments of Propositions 1a-c, which focused on nonverbal behaviors corresponding to men’s sexism, Proposition 2 argued the interpersonal effects of men’s nonverbal cues on women’s nonverbal behaviors depend on men’s expression of sexist attitudes and how women appraise such sexist information. Therefore, women are likely to appraise dyadic interactions with sexist men as either threatening or friendly, and adjust their nonverbal behaviors toward male partners accordingly. For example, if male interaction partners’ dominance displays are accompanied by explicit statements signaling their hostile sexism, women will likely appraise the social situation as interpersonally threatening, and thus express more dominance and less affiliation.

Additionally, if men display nonverbal affiliation with explicit statements of their benevolent sexist attitudes, then women may perceive the mixed-gender interaction as being friendly and innocuous, and thus will mimic men’s affiliation. Consistent with this logic and Proposition 2, I make the following predictions:

Hypothesis 2a: Male interactions partner’s expression of sexist attitudes will

moderate mimicry effects on affiliation, such that benevolent sexism will increase

women’s mimicry of affiliative nonverbal cues and hostile sexism will increase

women’s mimicry of nonaffiliative nonverbal cues.

Hypothesis 2b: Male interactions partner’s expression of sexist attitudes will

moderate complementarity and mimicry effects on dominance, such that

benevolent sexism will increase women’s dominance complementarity when a

male partner displays dominance coupled with affiliative cues and hostile sexism

will increase women’s mimicry of dominance when a male partner displays

dominance coupled with nonaffiliative cues.

Method

Participants. Based on the results of a priori power analyses using G*Power

3.1.9 expecting small-to-medium effect sizes (ANOVA: fixed, main, and interaction effects; effect size: f = .20; α error probability = .05, power = .95, numerator df = 1, number of groups = 4), 395 adult female participants were recruited from Amazon’s

Mechanical Turk website. Participants who completed the study received a nominal monetary payment ($0.75) in exchange for their participation. The mean age of participants was 32.9 years (SD = 10.9 years) and 75.2% identified as White, 10.1% as

African American, 6.3% as Asian, 6.6% as Hispanic, 0.3% as Native American, and

1.5% as other ethnicities.

Design and procedure. Study 2 consisted of a two-factor between-subjects

design with men’s expressed affiliative nonverbal cues with dominance (agreeableness

with dominance vs. quarrelsomeness with dominance) and men’s expression of sexism

(hostile sexism vs. benevolent sexism vs. no sexism) as the between-subjects independent

variables. This full 2 x 3 factorial design was modified in this study in order to omit two

cells based on the incongruence of men’s sexist attitudes with their displays of affiliative

cues. Therefore, the following two conditions were omitted from the study design: (1)

hostile sexism expressed with agreeableness and dominance; and (2) benevolent sexism

46 expressed with quarrelsomeness and dominance. The rationale behind this modification was that given the results of Study 1, hostile sexism is not related to men’s display of affiliative nonverbal cues (i.e., agreeableness), and benevolent sexism is not related to men’s display of nonaffiliative cues (i.e., quarrelsomeness). As a result, participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions according to the following modified 2 x 2 factorial design: (1) affiliation with dominance and benevolent sexism, (2) affiliation with dominance and no sexism, (3) nonaffiliation with dominance and hostile sexism, (4) nonaffiliation with dominance and no sexism. After clicking on the survey link through

Amazon’s Mechanical Turk website, participants who provided their informed consent began the study. Participants were then presented with a photograph of their male counterpart which displayed either affiliative (i.e., agreeable) or nonaffiliative (i.e., quarrelsome) nonverbal cues with dominance, and also a prescripted paragraph containing their partner’s name (Jeff) outlining his views toward women (i.e., sexism: hostile/benevolent/none).

Specifically, men’s dominance coupled with their displays of nonverbal affiliative and nonaffiliative cues (i.e., agreeableness vs. quarrelsomeness) were manipulated through the presentation of a four sets of photographs. Men’s nonverbal displays of dominance coupled with either affiliation or nonaffiliation in these photographs were adjusted according to body postures used in prior research (e.g., Carney, Cuddy, & Yap,

2010) which has manipulated dominance displays through either postural expansion

(dominance) or postural constriction (submissiveness). In addition, these images were also adjusted to convey either men’s affiliation or nonaffiliation, which follows previous studies (Halberstadt & Saitta, 1987) manipulating nonverbal displays of affiliation

through variations in a person’s facial expressions of smiling (agreeable) and

nonaffiliation through expression of frowning (quarrelsome) nonverbal cues.

For the conditions in which men expressed agreeableness nonverbally, men’s photographs were characterized by the presence of smiling facial cues. Alternatively, for the conditions in which men expressed nonaffiliation nonverbally, men’s photographs

were characterized by the presence of frowning facial cues. To ensure that there were no

confounding systematic differences resulting from the use of a single stimulus

photograph, four adult Caucasian males (Mage = 30.5 years, SD = 3.1, Mheight = 71.6

inches, SD = 1.8, Mweight = 180.8 pounds, SD = 13.4) were photographed in the same

location with identical poses (see Appendix C for stimuli photographs).1

Finally, depending on which sexism condition participants are assigned to, these

four sets of photos were also accompanied by a paragraph conveying diagnostic

information about men’s sexist attitudes consistent with their displays of nonverbal cues.

Specifically, these paragraphs contained statements about men’s endorsement of either

hostile, benevolent, or no sexism (see Appendix D), which follow the descriptive profiles

used in previous research assessing women’s perceptions of various types of men’s

sexism (e.g., Bohner et al., 2010; Kilanski & Rudman, 1998). For men displaying

dominance coupled with nonaffiliation, photographs were paired with either hostile sexist

or no sexism (control condition), and for men displaying dominance coupled with

1 Men who were photographed in the stimuli pictures for this study were coded as a four-level categorical predictor variable, which was included in all analyses as a random factor according to recommendations of previous literature on statistical procedures for stimulus sampling (Judd, Westfall, & Kenny, 2012; Westfall, Kenny, & Judd, 2014). No significant main or interaction effects emerged, nor were there observed differences in how the four men were perceived by women (as indicated by ratings for manipulation check questions). Therefore, these four stimulus subgroups were collapsed into the four experimental conditions.

affiliation, photographs were paired with either benevolent sexist or no sexism (control

condition).

After viewing these photographs, participants were then instructed to imagine themselves in a situation in which they were going to negotiate with the man depicted in the photograph. Following this, participants were then asked to fill out a questionnaire containing scales and measures described below.

Measures

Participants completed the following self-report measures described below, with the order of dominance/affiliation measures and manipulation check questions counterbalanced across conditions to minimize any potential ordering effects.

Dominance and affiliation. Women’s propensity to engage in control-related

(i.e., dominance) and affiliative nonverbal behaviors toward their male partners was

assessed through self-report questionnaires identical to those used in Study 1 adapted

from the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS; Richmond et al., 2003), which measures how

likely women are to adopt specific nonverbal behaviors reflecting dominance and

affiliation. Women’s self-ratings for these indices were used to create composite

measures of nonverbal dominance and affiliation.

Manipulation checks. Women completed two sets of manipulation checks to

evaluate whether the manipulations of men’s nonverbal cues and expressions of sexist

attitudes produced the intended effects across conditions. The first set of questions were

based on those used by Tiedens and Fragale (2003) and assessed women’s perceptions of

men’s nonverbal displays as reflecting their dominance (“How dominant do you think

your partner is?”; rated from 1 = not at all dominant to 7 = very dominant), and

agreeableness (“How agreeable do you think your male partner is?”; rated from 1 = not at

all agreeable to 7 = very agreeable). The second set of questions assessed women’s

perceptions of their male partners’ expression of hostile, benevolent, or no sexism, and

consisted of two items designed to check whether men’s statements were perceived as being sexist. More specifically, following the procedures of Bohner et al. (2010),

participants were asked to rate their partners on the following dimensions: sexist (“How

sexist is Jeff’s attitude toward women?”; rated from 1 = not at all sexist to 7 = very

sexist), benevolence (“How benevolent is Jeff’s attitude toward women?”; rated from 1 =

not at all benevolent to 7 = very benevolent), and hostility (“How hostile is Jeff’s attitude

toward women?”; rated from 1 = not at all hostile to 7 = very hostile).

Demographics. Several questions assessed various dimensions of participants’ demographic information, including age, gender, education level, and work experience, which allowed me to report descriptive statistics for the overall sample.

Results and Discussion

I first conducted several one-way ANOVAs to ensure that the manipulation of male interaction partners’ expressions of nonverbal affiliation and sexist attitudes were effective. To analyze the first set of manipulation checks on women’s perception of their male partners’ agreeableness, an ANOVA model included affiliative nonverbal cues

(agreeableness with dominance vs. quarrelsomeness with dominance) as a between-

subjects factor and ratings of partners’ agreeableness as the dependent variable. As

expected, women perceived their male partner to be more agreeable within affiliative

conditions (M = 5.48, SD = 1.51) than in nonaffiliative conditions (M = 3.79, SD = 2.16),

F(1, 393) = 80.82, p < .001, η2 = .17. In addition, a second ANOVA model with

perceived dominance as the dependent variable showed that women viewed their male

partner to be more dominant in the nonaffiliation conditions (M = 4.52, SD = 1.68) than

in affiliation conditions (M = 4.11, SD = 1.51), F(1, 393) = 6.66, p = .01, η2 = .01.

For the second set of manipulation checks on women’s perceptions of their male

partner’s expressed sexism, results demonstrated that women in the three sexism

conditions (i.e., benevolent vs. hostile vs. none) indeed differed significantly in their

sexist perceptions F(1, 392) = 51.48, p < .001, η2 = .12. Specifically, results of pairwise

comparisons of means across sexism conditions showed that women perceived hostile

sexism as significantly more sexist than benevolent sexism, (M = 5.52 vs. 4.26), t(194) =

-5.61, p < .001, and men who expressed benevolent sexism were perceived as

significantly more sexist than those who expressed no sexism, (M = 4.26 vs. 2.74), t(295)

= 5.22, p < .001.

Next, I conducted two separate one-way ANOVAs with type of expressed sexism

(benevolent vs. hostile vs. none) as the between-subjects factor and women’s perceptions

of their male partner’s benevolence and hostility as dependent variables in separate

models. As expected, women perceived men to be more benevolent in both the

benevolent sexism (M = 4.93, SD = 1.79) and control conditions (M = 4.51, SD = 2.19) than in the hostile sexism condition (M = 3.08, SD = 2.11), F(2, 392) = 38.39, p < .001,

η2 = .12. In addition, women perceived their male partner to be more hostile in the hostile

sexism condition (M = 5.87, SD = 1.41) than in either benevolent sexism (M = 2.03, SD =

1.38) or control conditions (M = 1.63, SD = 1.09), F(2, 391) = 396.15, p < .001, η2 = .67.

I conducted a two-way ANOVA with men’s expressed nonverbal cues (affiliation

with dominance vs. nonaffiliation with dominance) and expression of sexist attitudes (yes

vs. no) as between-subjects factors and composite scale of women’s nonverbal affiliation

(α = .74) as the dependent variable. Results indicated a significant main effect of men’s

nonverbal cues on women’s affiliation, such that women expressed more nonverbal

affiliation when imagining they were going to negotiate with men who expressed

affiliation with dominance (M = 5.14, SD = .82) versus nonaffiliation with dominance (M

= 4.68, SD = 1.04), F(1, 388) = 33.22, p < .001, η2 = .08. Additionally, a main effect of

men’s sexism on women’s nonverbal affiliation showed that women were less affiliative

towards men who expressed either benevolent or hostile sexist attitudes (M = 4.49, SD =

1.01) than men who expressed no sexism (M = 5.32, SD = .73), F(1, 388) = 67.64, p <

.001, η2 = .20.

To test Hypothesis 2a, I examined the interaction term between men’s nonverbal

affiliative cues and their expression of sexist attitudes (affiliation x sexism) in the model,

which revealed a significant two-way interaction on women’s nonverbal affiliation, F(1,

388) = 15.07, p < .001, η2 = .04. Specifically, women mimicked men’s affiliation more

when affiliation (i.e., agreeableness) was coupled with benevolent sexist information (M

= 4.89, SD = .90) than when nonaffiliation (i.e., quarrelsomeness) was coupled with

hostile sexist information (M = 4.09, SD = .94). However, women’s mimicry of men’s affiliation did not differ in the absence of sexism when men were affiliative and dominant

(M = 5.39, SD = .65) than when nonaffiliative and dominant (M = 5.24, SD = .80). These results support Hypothesis 2a by showing that women mimicked men’s affiliative nonverbal cues (i.e., agreeableness) more when they were coupled with benevolent

52 sexism, and also mimicked men’s nonaffiliative cues (i.e., quarrelsomeness) more when they were coupled with hostile sexism (see Figure 2).

To further probe this two-way interaction, I conducted simple slopes analyses within sexism conditions to qualify the effects of sexism type (benevolent vs. hostile) on women’s affiliation. These tests revealed that women became significantly more affiliative when men expressed benevolent sexism (M = 4.89, SD = .90) versus hostile sexism (M = 4.09, SD = .94), F(1, 191) = 37.31, p < .001, η2 = .16. Furthermore, women who imagined negotiating with nonsexist men became only slightly more affiliative when men expressed affiliative nonverbal cues with dominance (M = 5.39, SD = .65) than when men expressed nonaffiliative cues with dominance (M = 5.24, SD = .80), F(1, 197) =

2.31, p = .13, η2 = .01. Within nonsexist conditions, women’s mimicry of men’s nonverbal affiliation was not significantly influenced by whether men expressed affiliative versus nonaffiliative cues. Therefore, this pattern of results suggests there is something unique about men’s expression of sexist attitudes that affects women’s nonverbal mimicry of men’s affiliative cues.

Next, I conducted another two-way ANOVA with men’s displays of affiliative nonverbal cues (agreeableness with dominance vs. quarrelsomeness with dominance) and expression of sexist attitudes (yes vs. no) as between-subjects factors and the composite scale of women’s nonverbal dominance (α = .71) as the dependent variable. A significant main effect of men’s affiliative cues on women’s dominance emerged, such that women unexpectedly became more dominant when imagining they were going to negotiate with men who expressed affiliation with dominance (M = 4.58, SD = .87) versus men who expressed nonaffiliation with dominance (M = 4.02, SD = 1.01), F(1, 386) = 44.74, p <

.001, η2 = .10. Additionally, a significant main effect of men’s sexism on women’s

nonverbal dominance was also observed, such that women were less dominant towards

men who expressed either benevolent or hostile sexist attitudes (M = 3.91, SD = 1.04) versus men who expressed no sexism (M = 4.69, SD = .74, F(1, 388) = 60.85, p < .001, η2

= .18.

To test Hypothesis 2b, I examined the interaction term between men’s affiliative

nonverbal cues and their expression of sexist attitudes (affiliation x sexism) in the

previous ANOVA model, which revealed a significant two-way interaction on women’s nonverbal dominance, F(1, 386) = 11.71, p < .001, η2 = .03 (see Figure 3). Specifically,

women became less dominant when hostile sexist information was coupled with

nonaffiliation (M = 3.46, SD = .94) than when nonaffiliation was presented alongside no

sexist information (M = 4.54, SD = .76). In addition, women also became less dominant when men expressed benevolent sexism together with affiliation (M = 4.33, SD = .94) than when men’s affiliation was coupled with no sexist information (M = 4.83, SD = .70).

That is, women adopted more dominance complementarity when imagining they were going to negotiate with a benevolent sexist male partner who displayed positive affiliative nonverbal cues versus a nonsexist partner.

To further probe this two-way interaction further, I then tested simple slopes of women’s reported dominance in response to type of sexism (benevolent vs. hostile) expressed by men. This analysis showed that women became significantly more dominant when men expressed benevolent sexism (M = 4.33, SD = .94) versus when they expressed hostile sexism (M = 3.46, SD = .94), F(1, 190) = 40.11, p < .001, η2 = .17.

Moreover, women who imagined negotiating with nonsexist men became more dominant

when men expressed affiliative nonverbal cues with dominance (M = 4.83, SD = .70) than when men expressed nonaffiliative cues with dominance (M = 4.55, SD = .75), F(1, 196)

= 7.20, p < .01, η2 = .04. These results suggest that when encountering sexist statements,

women actually mimic men’s dominance more when men express benevolent sexist

versus hostile sexist attitudes. However, women engaged in complementarity of nonsexist

men’s dominance more when it was accompanied by nonaffiliative (i.e., quarrelsome)

than affiliative (i.e., agreeable) nonverbal cues.

Together, these findings provide some support for Hypothesis 2b, which predicted

the presence of hostile sexism alongside men’s nonaffiliation would increase women’s

mimicry of men’s dominance, and benevolent sexism coupled with men’s affiliation

would increase women’s dominance complementarity. As expected by Hypothesis 2b, the

presence of benevolent sexist information did increase women’s dominance

complementarity (relative to the control condition), as women became significantly less

dominant when imagining they were going to negotiate with a benevolent sexist man than

with a nonsexist man. However, contrary to the predictions of Hypothesis 2b, women

also became less dominant when hostile sexist information was accompanied by men’s

expression of nonaffiliation with dominance. Therefore, women did not increase their

mimicry of hostile sexist men’s dominance; rather they increased their mimicry of

nonsexist men’s dominance when it was accompanied with nonaffiliative cues (see

Figure 3).

As outlined previously in Proposition 2, women’s nonverbal behaviors in

response to men’s nonverbal cues in mixed-gender social interactions are largely

influenced by men’s expression of sexist attitudes towards members of the opposite sex.

Specifically, main effects of the presence of explicitly sexist statements on women’s

nonverbal behavior were observed, such that sexism decreased both women’s nonverbal

affiliation and dominance. On the other hand, main effects of affiliative nonverbal cues

emerged, such that women became both more affiliative and dominant when men

displayed affiliation with dominance versus when they expressed nonaffiliation. These

findings partially support the predictions of Hypothesis 2a by showing that women did

indeed increase their mimicry of men’s nonaffiliative cues when they expressed hostile

sexism compared to no sexism. However, these results did not support the prediction that

women would increase their mimicry of men’s affiliative cues when men expressed

benevolent sexism compared with no sexism.

In addition, contrary to the predictions of Hypothesis 2b, hostile sexist

information did not increase women’s mimicry of dominance when men were dominant

and displayed nonaffiliative cues (i.e., quarrelsomeness) towards women. One possible explanation for this effect, which will be discussed further in the General Discussion, is that women perceive the combination of hostile sexism and nonaffiliative cues as threatening or overly aggressive. Therefore, engaging in mimicry of men’s dominance under these circumstances could escalate interpersonal conflict between parties and place women in a potentially risky situation. This may help to explain why women were found to become much less dominant when encountering hostile sexist information versus when they were exposed to benevolent sexism. In other words, women might perceive benevolent sexist information to be more innocuous and less threatening, especially when it is accompanied with nonverbal cues signaling interpersonal affiliation.

Unexpectedly, women reported feeling more dominant when men displayed

dominance with affiliative nonverbal cues, compared with when men expressed

nonaffiliation. This main effect of men’s affiliation is noteworthy because it suggests that

women may indeed be appraising affiliative dimensions of men’s nonverbal behavior to determine whether their mixed-gender interactions signal goal fulfillment or goal blockage. In this case, men’s affiliative cues would indicate men’s willingness to cooperate with women, so it may be the case that women view this as an opportunity for behaving assertively (and thus dominantly) in an effort to pursue possible accomplishment of positive outcomes within dyadic contexts. However, when women might appraise men’s motives as being incongruent with fulfilling their desired outcomes, as could be the case when men display nonaffiliation with dominance, then women may view mimicry of men’s dominance as an unproductive social behavior that carries with it a potential for more interpersonal risks than rewards.

While results of Study 2 failed to categorically support predictions of both

Hypotheses 2a and 2b, findings did show that women’s nonverbal responses to men’s dominance is moderated by men’s expression of sexist attitudes toward women in a mixed-gender dyadic context. In particular, women engaged in more dominance complementarity with sexist versus nonsexist men. In addition, women increased their mimicry of both men’s dominance and affiliation specifically when men expressed affiliative (i.e., agreeable) cues. Given these outcomes, women do respond behaviorally to men’s nonverbal cues in ways that are characterized by interpersonal dynamics of both nonverbal complementarity and mimicry. Therefore, Study 3 aims to address some of the limitations of Study 2, which solely examined women’s responses to men’s dominance displays (and not submissiveness), and also only measured women’s nonverbal behaviors

through self-report questionnaires.

While Study 2 manipulated men’s expression of sexist attitudes paired with

photographs displaying their affiliative cues of smiling versus frowning, Study 3 varies

men’s nonverbal behavior through manipulation of male partner’s concurrent displays of

dominance (dominance vs. submissiveness) together with either affiliative (i.e.,

agreeable) or nonaffiliative (i.e., quarrelsome) cues. As a result, Study 3 assesses

women’s nonverbal responses in a more comprehensive manner by examining actual behaviors in face-to-face mixed gender social interactions. In addition, Study 3 provides a direct test of Propositions 3a and 3b to examine women’s nonverbal complementarity and mimicry of men’s nonverbal cues in the absence of sexist information, yet still measures women’s behavioral responses to men’s display of nonverbal cues corresponding to both hostile sexism (i.e., nonaffiliation with dominance) and benevolent sexism (i.e., affiliation with either dominance or submissiveness).

Study 3: Women’s Nonverbal Mimicry and Complementarity

Within Mixed-Gender Interactions

Study 2 demonstrated the moderating effect of men’s expression of sexism on women’s dominance complementarity and mimicry of men’s affiliative nonverbal cues.

While Proposition 2 focused on explaining how sexism influences women’s nonverbal responses to men’s dominance and affiliation, Proposition 3a suggested that the coupling of men’s dominance with affiliative nonverbal behavior influences women’s mimicry of affiliative and nonaffiliative cues. For instance, women might adjust their nonverbal behaviors accordingly to assimilate to men’s affiliation by reciprocating the exchange of

affiliative cues, and thus engaging in mimicry and more frequent displays of both

affiliative and nonaffiliative cues toward men. In addition, following from Proposition

3b, I further argue that in the absence of sexist information, women are more likely to

engage in nonverbal mimicry of their male counterpart’s dominance when it is displayed

together with nonaffiliation, rather than with affiliative nonverbal cues. I also predict that women are more likely to complement men’s displays of dominance and become submissive when dominance is accompanied by nonverbal cues expressing men’s affiliation through their agreeableness with women. Consistent with this logic and

Propositions 3a and 3b, I make the following predictions:

Hypothesis 3a: Women mimic men’s affiliative nonverbal cues regardless of

whether such cues express men’s affiliation or nonaffiliation toward women.

Hypothesis 3b: Women’s dominance complementarity depends on men’s displays

of affiliative nonverbal cues, such that women will complement men’s dominance

when it is coupled with affiliative cues and mimic men’s dominance when it is

coupled with nonaffiliative cues.

This third study was designed to experimentally test the predictions of Hypotheses 3a and

3b in a controlled lab setting. In particular, I investigate the interpersonal effects of men’s nonverbal cues on women’s adoption of nonverbal dominance complementarity and mimicry in face-to-face dyadic interactions. Specifically, this study manipulates a male

confederate’s displays of dominance-related and both affiliative and nonaffiliative nonverbal behaviors toward women, and measures how women respond nonverbally to different combinations of nonverbal cues within mixed-gender social interactions.

Method

Participants. Based on the results of a priori power analyses using G*Power

3.1.9 (ANOVA: fixed, main, and interaction effects; effect size: f = .3; α error probability

= .05, power = .8, numerator df = 1, number of groups = 4), for medium-to-large effects

the recommended sample size was 100. As a result, 113 female participants were

recruited for the study. However, 18 participants were excluded from the overall sample because they did not successfully pass the suspicion check items,2 which indicated these

women expressed some level of suspicion about their male partner being a trained actor

during the experiment. This yielded a final sample size of 95 women with a mean age of

23.7 years (SD = 5.3 years), and 59.3% of participants identified as White, 25.7% as

Asian, 8% as Hispanic, 0.9% as Native American, and 6.2% as other ethnicities.

Participants recruited for this study were comprised of a sample of both

undergraduate students from the management department subject pool, and volunteer

participants recruited from the population of students and staff on campus at the

University of Utah. Students who completed the study received course credit in exchange

for their participation, and volunteers who completed the study received monetary

compensation ($10) in exchange for their participation.3

Design and procedure. Study 3 consisted of a two-factor between-subjects

design manipulating male confederate’s nonverbal behavior on the dimensions of control

2 Results of statistical analyses for Study 3 did not differ from those reported in the sections below when these 18 participants were included in the overall sample (n = 113).

3 The manner through which participants were recruited for the study was entered as a categorical variable (dummy-coded: student = 0, volunteer = 1) in order to test for possible effects of recruitment method on the dependent variables. Including this recruitment variable (student vs. volunteer) as a between-subjects fixed factor in all statistical analyses revealed no significant main or interactive effects of recruitment method.

(dominance vs. submissiveness) and affiliation (affiliative vs. nonaffiliative cues) as two between-subjects independent variables. That is, women were assigned to one of four possible conditions with a male confederate exhibiting one of the following combinations of nonverbal behaviors: dominance/affiliation vs. dominance/nonaffiliation vs. submissiveness/affiliation vs. submissiveness/nonaffiliation.

Upon arriving at the lab, participants gave informed consent to take part in the study and then were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions. After this time, female participants were introduced to the male confederate as another participant who would be their partner for the study, at which point the experimenter led both the female participant and the male confederate into a private room. After being asked to sit in the two chairs across from each other, the experimenter explained they would be completing a picture description exercise with their task partner. Consistent with previous research examining the interpersonal dynamics of nonverbal complementarity and mimicry in dyadic social contexts (i.e., Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Tiedens & Fragale,

2003), participants then engaged in a picture description task where they were instructed to describe projected images of artistic paintings to each other. Participants’ social interactions with the male confederate during this picture description task were videotaped and recorded for a time period of 5 minutes using camera equipment pre- installed in the lab. After participants completed this task phase of the study, the experimenter returned and led both the participant and confederate into separate, private rooms where they completed an online survey containing all study questionnaire measures.

Materials

The picture description task and manipulations of the male confederate’s nonverbal behaviors described below were used to examine how women respond to men’s nonverbal dominance and affiliation.

Picture description task. This exercise was adopted from Tiedens and Fragale

(2003) and involved presenting images of four artistic paintings to participants through a projector screen displayed on the wall in the room in which women interacted with the male confederate. First, participants were instructed they needed to describe two paintings each to their partner, and that their accuracy recognition of these paintings would be tested later on in the experiment to determine whether they were able to successfully recognize this artwork based on their partners’ descriptions. The male confederate’s descriptions of these paintings were derived from an online website

(artbeyondsight.org), which was created by an organization that provides written descriptions of artwork (paintings, sculptures, etc.) for blind people. These prescripted descriptions of the painting were memorized by the confederate to ensure consistency in delivery across all experimental sessions (see Appendix E). Pictures were displayed at fixed time intervals and participants were asked to describe their designated pictures to their partner in an alternating manner (e.g., confederate first, participant second, confederate third, participant fourth). In addition, this order was counterbalanced across conditions, with confederates (versus participants) describing the first picture in half of the sessions to minimize any possible ordering effects (for a detailed schematic of the lab setup see Appendix F).

Manipulations. Men’s nonverbal displays of control-related nonverbal cues (i.e.,

62 dominance or submissiveness) and affiliative nonverbal behaviors (i.e., affiliation or nonaffiliation) were manipulated through the use of a male confederate. This confederate was trained by the experimenter to exhibit a specific set of nonverbal behaviors during his social interactions with female participants, which closely follows the procedures outlined in previous research by Tiedens and Fragale (2003) using confederates to study the dynamics of nonverbal mimicry and complementarity in a controlled laboratory setting. Specifically, in the dominance conditions, the confederate was instructed to exhibit postural expansion by draping his arm over the back of an empty chair, and also crossing his legs in a manner that caused his knees to protrude out as far as possible.

Alternatively, in the submissiveness conditions, the confederate was instructed to display postural constriction toward female participants by sitting in a chair slouched over slightly and keeping both his hands and legs together as to take up as little space as possible. For the affiliation manipulation, in the affiliative conditions the confederate’s role was to exhibit nonverbal cues such as smiling, nodding in agreement, and laughing with participants to signal his agreeableness and friendliness (de Lemus et al., 2012;

Leikas, Lönnqvist, & Verkasalo, 2012). For the conditions involving nonverbal displays of nonaffiliation the confederate was instructed to exhibit frowning, periodically interrupt women’s questions and/or comments (Farley, 2008; Farley et al., 2010; Robinson & Reis,

1989), and not to smile (Moskowitz, 1994).

Prior to implementing this manipulation for Study 3, a pilot study was conducted with the male confederate to ensure the validity of these manipulations. In this pilot study, the male confederate was videotaped for 2 minutes while he interacted with a woman and exhibited different combinations of nonverbal displays according to the four

63 conditions specified by the experimental design (i.e., dominance/affiliation vs. dominance/nonaffiliation vs. submissiveness/affiliation vs. submissiveness/nonaffiliation). Next, all audio was removed and the woman with whom the confederate was interacting with was cropped out during the final processing of the videos (see Appendix G for screenshots of the confederate from each condition).

These four videos were then watched and rated by 194 female participants4 recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk website who were compensated a nominal monetary fee ($0.50) for their participation. Women were randomly assigned to watch one of the four videos, and afterwards completed a brief questionnaire assessing their perceptions of the male confederate’s expressed dominance and affiliation. This questionnaire included manipulation check items used by Tiedens and Fragle (2003) to measure perceptions of dominance through trait ratings (on a 7-point scale; rated from 1

= not at all to 7 = very) of both men’s self-confidence and assertiveness, and manipulation check questions identical to those used in Studies 1 and 2 to assess women’s perceptions of the confederate’s dominance (i.e., “how dominant do you think the man in the video was?”) and affiliation (i.e., “how agreeable do you think the man in the video was?”). Composite scales for both dominance (α = .86) and affiliation (α = .90) were then created from these ratings.

Importantly, results from this pretest provided initial evidence for the validity of the manipulation of the male confederate’s nonverbal expressions. Indeed, women perceived the male confederate to be more dominant when he displayed postural

4 Based on the results of a priori power analyses using G*Power 3.1.9 (ANOVA: fixed, main, and interaction effects; effect size: f = .25; α error probability = .05, power = .8, numerator df = 1, number of groups = 4), for a medium-to-large effect size the recommended sample size was 194.

expansion in the dominance conditions (M = 4.44, SD = 1.04) versus when he displayed postural constriction in the submissiveness conditions (M = 2.95, SD = 1.07), F(1, 189) =

97.28, p < .001, η2 = .34. Additionally, women perceived the male confederate to be more

affiliative in the affiliation condition (M = 5.29, SD = 1.06) versus when he expressed nonaffiliation (M = 4.21, SD = 1.34), F(1, 190) = 41.37, p < .001, η2 = .18.

Measures

Outcome variables assessed in Study 3 consisted of women’s nonverbal displays of dominance and affiliation exhibited during the picture description task, women’s perceptions of their male partner’s nonverbal behaviors (assessed through manipulation check questions), and their open-ended responses to questions probing their thoughts about possible aims of the study and any suspicions their task partner was a

confederate/actor.

Nonverbal displays. Women’s displays of nonverbal behavior were measured

using the videotaped recordings of their social interactions with the male confederate.

Two trained coders blind to the hypotheses of the study coded video clips for displays of

both nonverbal dominance and affiliation during the picture description task. Coding

schemes for assessing women’s nonverbal displays (for coding manual and materials, see

Appendix H) were based on procedures from previous studies (de Lemus et al., 2012;

Manusov & Trees, 2002; Tiedens & Fragale, 2003). Coders measured women’s

nonverbal dominance displays through changes in their body postures (see below for

more detail) and also frequency of their displays of nonverbal behaviors signaling their

affiliation toward men (i.e., smiling, frowning, head nodding, gesturing, etc.).

Following previously developed procedures by Tiedens and Fragale (2003) for

coding postural changes in nonverbal behaviors (to measure dominance or

submissiveness), social interactions were recorded using a camera held at a fixed,

constant distance from participants, and changes in body postures throughout the study

were assessed by holding a ruler up to the computer screen displaying the videos and

measuring the width of body postures in millimeters from the most extreme leftward to

the most rightward points of their bodies. These measurements were taken at the

beginning to provide a baseline of women’s body postures, and also then reassessed

throughout by stopping the video every 30 seconds to measure body postures for

assessing women’s adoption of postural changes over time, such as through their adoption of more expansive (i.e., dominant) postures or constricted (i.e., submissive) postures, or through remaining consistent (i.e., neutral) in their body postures over time.

I provided training for coders by first having them code four videotapes (one from

each condition), and then comparing their measurements to each other’s and to my own.

Any differences in measurements for these videos were resolved by meeting with the

coders to discuss inconsistencies and clarify details about the coding procedure.

Afterwards, each coder rated two more videotapes to ensure that their measurements

agreed with each other before proceeding with coding the remaining sample of

videotapes: ICCdominance = .92, 95% CI [.83, .96]; ICCaffiliation = .89, 95% CI [.72, .94].

Inter-rater reliability for the overall sample, as indicated by the magnitude of the

intraclass correlation coefficients between coder’s ratings using a two-way mixed effects

model, indicated that there was an acceptable level of agreement between trained coders

in their assessment of women’s nonverbal behaviors: ICCdominance = .86, 95% CI [.71,

.91]; ICCaffiliation = .83, 95% CI [.69, .90]. Therefore, both coders’ ratings were averaged

to create composite measurement indices for both nonverbal dominance and affiliation.

Manipulation checks. Participants completed two manipulation check questions to evaluate whether the manipulations of men’s nonverbal cues resulted in the intended effects across conditions. These questions were identical to those used in the pretest for

Study 3, which assessed women’s perceptions of their male interaction partner’s nonverbal displays as reflecting expressed dominance (“How dominant/assertive/self- confident do you think your partner is?”; rated from 1 = not at all dominant to 7 = very dominant), and affiliation (“How agreeable/friendly/kind do you think your male partner is?”; rated from 1 = not at all agreeable to 7 = very agreeable).

Suspicion checks. Three open-ended questions were used to probe participants’

perceptions of the aims of the research and their possible suspicions about their task

partner’s being a confederate in the experiment (see Appendix I). These questions were based on those included in previous research on interpersonal dynamics of nonverbal behavior (e.g., Tiedens & Fragale, 2003). Participants’ responses from these open-ended questions were qualitatively evaluated to determine whether they expressed any suspicions about the study. Participants who indicated any suspicions about the experiment were flagged and not included in the analyses (see specific responses to suspicion check questions used to exclude participants in Appendix I).

Demographics. Several questions assessed various dimensions of participants’

demographic information, including age, gender, education level, and work experience,

which will allow me to report on meaningful characteristics, such as descriptive statistics,

for the overall sample.

Results and Discussion

I analyzed the manipulation check questions to ensure that the manipulation was

effective. Women’s ratings of their male partner’s dominance, assertiveness, and self-

confidence were averaged to create a composite measure of his perceived dominance (α =

.81), and women’s ratings of agreeableness, friendliness, and kindness were averaged to

create a composite measure of perceived partner’s affiliation (α = .88). These composite

variables were included as dependent variables in separate two-way ANOVA models,

with dominance (dominance vs. submissiveness) and affiliation (affiliative vs.

nonaffiliative cues) included as between-subjects independent variables. Results showed

that the manipulations worked as intended, with a significant main effect of dominance

condition on perceptions of partner’s dominance, F(1, 91) = 26.33, p < .001, η2 = .12.

Specifically, women perceived their male partner to be more dominant in the dominance

conditions (M = 3.66, SD = 1.75) than in the submissiveness conditions (M = 2.63, SD =

1.21). In addition, there was significant main effect of affiliation condition on partner’s

affiliation, F(1, 90) = 77.12, p < .001, η2 = .46, such that women perceived their male

partner to be more affiliative in the affiliation conditions (M = 5.81, SD = 1.14) than in nonaffiliation conditions (M = 3.80, SD = 1.15).

Frequency measures for the number of times women displayed both affiliative and nonaffiliative cues during the picture description task were calculated using averages of women’s nonverbal behaviors coded and derived from video recordings. For nonverbal affiliation, behaviors included head nodding (in agreement with their partner), smiling, raising eyebrows, leaning forward (closer to their partner), and actively gesturing with their hands (α = .81). For nonaffiliation, nonverbal cues included frowning, looking away

from their partner, eye rolling, head rolling (in disagreement with their partner), and

finger wagging. Given there were no instances of finger wagging reported by any coders,

this nonverbal behavior was not included in the composite index of women’s

nonaffiliation (α = .77).

To test the predictions of Hypothesis 3a, I then conducted separate two-way

ANOVAs with male partner’s dominance (dominance vs. submissiveness) and nonverbal

affiliation (affiliative vs. nonaffiliative cues) as between-subjects factors and composite

scales of women’s affiliative and nonaffiliative behaviors as dependent variables in each

model. For affiliative nonverbal behaviors, results indicated a significant main effect of

male partner’s affiliation on women’s display of affiliative cues, F(1, 91) = 25.65, p <

.001, η2 = .22. Specifically, women displayed more nonverbal affiliation when interacting

with a male partner who expressed affiliation (M = 17.82, SD = 8.52) versus with a

partner who expressed nonaffiliation (M = 10.55, SD = 4.92). A marginally significant

main effect of male partner’s dominance on women’s affiliation also emerged, such that

women were more affiliative towards a male partner who was submissive (M = 15.9, SD

= 8.81) versus a dominant male partner (M = 13.1, SD = 6.72), F(1, 91) = 3.89, p = .051,

η2 = .04.

Examining the interaction term of dominance x affiliation revealed a significant

two-way interaction on women’s nonverbal affiliation, F(1, 91) = 7.37, p < .01, η2 = .08

(see Figure 4). Specifically, women mimicked affiliation more when their male partner’s

affiliative cues were coupled with submissiveness (M = 21.06, SD = 8.63), which

according to the results of Study 1 are characteristic of benevolent sexist men’s nonverbal

displays, versus when affiliative cues were coupled with dominance (M = 14.45, SD =

7.11).

To further probe this two-way interaction, I conducted simple slopes analyses within dominance conditions to qualify the effects of male partner’s display of affiliative cues on women’s nonverbal affiliation. These tests revealed a trend-level significant effect that women mimicked affiliative cues more when their partner expressed affiliation

(M = 14.45, SD = 7.11) versus nonaffiliation (M = 11.14, SD = 5.73), F(1, 42) = 2.68, p =

.10, η2 = .06. However, women in the submissiveness conditions engaged in significantly greater mimicry of affiliative cues when their partner expressed affiliation (M = 21.06,

SD = 8.63) versus nonaffiliation (M = 10.1, SD = 4.27), F(1, 49) = 31.72, p < .001, η2 =

.39.

These results provide empirical support for Hypothesis 3a by showing that women tended to mimic men’s affiliative nonverbal cues in accordance with their male partner’s expression of affiliative cues, and women also displayed less affiliative nonverbal cues when their partner expressed nonaffiliation. In addition, these findings suggest women more readily mimic affiliation in mixed-gender dyads when their male partner’s nonverbal behavior is characterized by submissive and affiliative cues, a specific pattern of nonverbal behavior that is directly associated with men’s endorsement of benevolent sexist attitudes. Additionally, these findings also indicate that women expressed affiliative nonverbal cues when their male partner signaled nonaffiliation during mixed-gender social interactions. However, women’s display of affiliative nonverbal behavior under these circumstances occurred at a much lower rate compared with when their partner expressed affiliation. Furthermore, women’s affiliation toward a male partner who expressed nonaffiliation cues did not differ significantly depending on

whether he adopted either dominant or submissive body postures.

For nonaffiliative nonverbal behaviors, results indicated a nonsignificant main

effect of affiliation condition on women’s display of nonaffiliative cues, F(1, 91) = 1.66,

p = .20, η2 = .02, and a significant main effect of male partner’s dominance on

nonaffiliation, such that women displayed more nonaffiliative cues towards a male

partner who was dominant (M = 14.44, SD = 5.88) than a submissive male partner (M =

11.54, SD = 5.44), F(1, 91) = 7.64, p < .01, η2 = .08. Examining the two-way interaction

term of dominance x affiliation revealed a significant interaction on women’s

nonaffiliative behaviors, F(1, 91) = 5.80, p < .05, η2 = .06. That is, women mimicked

nonaffiliative cues more when their male partner’s nonaffiliation was coupled with

dominance (M = 15.19, SD = 6.52) versus when nonaffiliative cues were coupled with submissiveness (M = 9.31, SD = 3.96).

To further qualify this two-way interaction, I examined simple slopes tests within dominance conditions to qualify the effects of partner’s affiliative cues on women’s displays of nonaffiliation. These tests revealed a statistically nonsignificant effect of male partner’s affiliative cues on women’s mimicry of nonaffiliative cues, F(1, 42) = .49, p =

.48, η2 = .01. However, women in the submissiveness conditions displayed more

nonaffiliative cues when he expressed affiliation (M = 13.52, SD = 5.87) versus

nonaffiliation (M = 9.31, SD = 3.96), F(1, 49) = 8.76, p = .005, η2 = .15. These results reveal women did not readily mimic their male partner’s nonaffiliation, even when it was displayed in conjunction with his submissiveness (see Figure 5).

Overall, this pattern of results provide additional support for Hypothesis 3a by showing that women did mimic male partner’s nonaffiliative cues, but only under certain

conditions, such as when their partner expressed nonaffiliation with dominance.

Therefore, women mimicked nonaffiliation more frequently when their male partner behaved dominantly and displayed nonaffiliative cues, which are characteristics of hostile sexist men’s nonverbal behavior toward women (see Study 1 results).

For body posture data, in order to see if women adopted a similar or different initial body position across conditions, I conducted a two-way ANOVA with the male

partner’s dominance (dominance vs. submissiveness) and affiliation (affiliative vs.

nonaffiliative cues) as between-subjects factors and women’s initial body posture at Time

1 (30 seconds) as the dependent variable. No significant main effects emerged for either

male partner’s dominance or affiliation on women’s initial body position (both Fs < 1).

However, there was a significant two-way interaction on women’s initial body posture

(see Figure 6), as women adopted more expansive postures when their male partner was both dominant and affiliative (M = 108.1, SD = 29.74) than when he was dominant and nonaffiliative (M = 76.89, SD = 31.99), and also women adopted more expansive body postures when their partner was submissive and nonaffiliative (M = 102.5, SD = 31.28) than when he has submissive and affiliative (M = 82.89, SD = 28.71), F(1, 91) = 16.29, p

< .001, η2 = .15.

In addition, to probe the nature of this two-way interaction, I conducted simple

slopes analyses within dominance conditions to qualify the effects of men’s affiliative

cues on women’s body posture as measured after the first 30 seconds of the picture

description task. These tests revealed a significant effect of men’s affiliative cues on

women’s mimicry of men’s dominance, such that women engaged in more dominance

mimicry at Time 1 (e.g., exhibited more expansive body postures) when men displayed

dominance with affiliative cues (M = 108.08, SD = 29.74) versus nonaffiliative cues (M =

76.89, SD = 31.99), F(1, 42) = 10.99, p < .05, η2 = .21. This effect of nonverbal mimicry

was also observed when male partners adopted submissive body postures, as women

engaged in more dominance mimicry at Time 1 (e.g., exhibited more constricted body

postures) when men expressed submissiveness with affiliative cues (M = 82.89, SD =

28.72) versus with nonaffiliative cues (M = 102.5, SD = 31.25), F(1, 49) = 5.45, p < .05,

η2 = .10. These results revealed that women, at least initially, did not engage in

dominance complementarity when their male partner behaved dominantly and expressed

affiliation. Rather, not only did women adopt dominance complementarity when their

partner displayed dominance with nonaffiliative cues, but they also complemented his

submissiveness by becoming more dominant when he expressed nonaffiliative cues.