of demeanor, like rules of deference, can be symmetrical or asymmetrical.
Between social equals, symmetrical rules of demeanor seem often to
be prescribed. Between unequals many variations can be found. For
example, at staff meetings on the psychiatric units of the hospital,
medical doctors had the privilege of swearing, changing the topic
of conversation, and sitting in undignified positions; attendants,
on the other hand, had the right to attend staff meetings and to ask
questions during them . . . but were implicitly expected to conduct
themselves with greater circumspection than was required of doctors....
Similarly, doctors had the right to saunter into the nurses' station,
lounge on the station's dispensing counter, and engage in joking with
the nurses; other ranks participated in this informal interaction
with doctors, but only after doctors had initiated it.5
status variable that illustrates rules of symmetry and asymmetry is
the use of terms of address, widely studied by Brown and others.6
In languages that have both familiar and polite forms of the second
person singular ("you"), asymmetrical use of the two forms
invariably indicates a status difference, and it always follows the
same pattern. The person using the familiar form is always the superior
to the person using the polite form. In English, the only major European
language not to have dual forms of address, status differences are
similarly indicated by the right of first-naming (addressing a person
by his or her given name rather than surname): The status superior
can first-name the inferior in situations in which the inferior must
use the superior's title and last name. An inferior who breaks this
rule by inappropriately using a superior's first name is considered
to Brown, the pattern evident in the use of forms of address applies
to a very wide range of interpersonal behavior and invariably has
two other components: (1) whatever form is used by a superior in situations
of status inequality can be used reciprocally by intimates, and whatever
form is used by an inferior is the socially prescribed usage for nonintimates;
(2) initiation or increase of intimacy is the right of the superior.
To use the example of naming again to illustrate the first component,
friends use first names with each other, whereas strangers use titles
and last names (although "instant" intimacy is considered
proper in some cultures, such as our own, among status equals in informal
settings). As an example of the second component, status superiors,
such as professors, specifically tell status inferiors, such as students,
when they may use the first name, and often rebuff the inferiors if
they assume such a right without invitation.
relevance of these patterns to status differences between the sexes
is readily seen. The social rules say that all moves to greater intimacy
are a male prerogative: It is boys who are supposed to call girls
for dates, men who are supposed to propose marriage to women, and
males who are supposed to initiate sexual activity with females. Females
who make "advances" are considered improper, forward, aggressive,
brassy, or otherwise "unladylike." By initiating intimacy,
they have stepped out of their place and usurped a status prerogative.
The value of such a prerogative is that it is a form of power. In
interactions between the sexes, as in other human interactions, the
one who has the right to initiate greater intimacy has more control
over the relationship. Superior status brings with it not only greater
prestige and greater privilege but also greater power.
DEMEANOR, POSTURE, AND DRESS
advantages of superior status are exemplified in many of the means
of communicating status. Like the doctors in Goffman's research hospital,
men are allowed such privileges as swearing and sitting in undignified
positions, but women are denied them. Although the male privilege
of swearing is curtailed in mixed company, the body movement permitted
to women may be circumscribed even in all-female groups. It is considered
''unladylike" for a woman to use her body too forcefully, to
sprawl, to stand with her legs widely spread, to sit with her feet
up, or to cross the ankle of one leg over the knee of the other. Many
of these positions are ones of strength or dominance.
has reviewed the research evidence for sex differences in nonverbal
behavior, linking it with evidence for differences due to power, status,
or dominance. She concludes that the symbols and gestures used by
males tend to be those of power and dominance, while the gestures
of females tend to be those of subordination and submission. Wex9
reached similar conclusions through her examination of the public
postures of women and men photographed in Germany.10
The more "feminine" a woman's clothes, the more circumscribed
the use of her body. Depending on her clothes, she may be expected
to sit with her knees together, not to sit cross- legged, or not even
to bend over. Although these taboos seem to have lessened in recent
years, how much so is unknown, and there are recurring social pressures
for a "return to femininity," while etiquette arbiters assert
that women must retain feminine posture no matter what their clothing.
to the 1920s, women's clothes were designed to be confining and cumbersome.
The dress-reform movement, which disposed of corsets and long skirts,
was considered by many to have more significance for female emancipation
than women's suffrage.11 Today
women's clothes are often designed to be revealing of their bodies,
but women are expected to restrict their body movements to avoid revealing
too much. Furthermore, because women's clothes are contrived to cling
and reveal women's physical features, rather than to be loose as men's
are, women must resort to purses instead of pockets to carry their
belongings. These "conveniences" (purses) have become, in
a time of unisex clothing and hairstyles and other blurred sex distinctions,
one of the surest signs of sex, and thus have developed the character
of a stigma, a sign of women's shame --for example, when they are
used by comics to ridicule both women and transvestites.
ACCESS TO A PERSON'S SELF AND BODY
in our society are expected to reveal not only more of their bodies
than men but also more of their minds and souls. Whereas men are expected
to be stolid and impassive and not to disclose their feelings beyond
certain limits, women are expected to express their feelings fully.
Indeed research evidences indicates that both sexes do act out these
stereotypes: Hall's review of thirty-eight studies of females and
males as nonverbal communicators showed females to be more expressive
than males in almost two-thirds of the studies surveyed.12
Does this mean that women are more emotional than men? Differences
in emotional expression do not necessarily mean that the actual emotions
are felt differently Just as different cultures operate under different
norms for the appropriateness of emotional display, so do women and
men have different "display rules." For example, a study
attempting to separate felt emotion from display rules found no sex
differences in emotional state experienced by subject in response
to emotional stimuli, but did find women to show more facial activity
than men.13 Female socialization
encourages generally greater expression of emotion than does male
socialization (although expression of anger is more sanctioned for
men than for women).
socialization and expectations of others (social norms) are probably
implicated in the frequent research finding that females are more
self- disclosing to others than males are.14
Self- disclosure involves both expression of emotion and revelation
of other personal and intimate information. Not only do we expect
women to be more self-disclosing than men, but we see negative implications
when women are not self-disclosing, or when men are: A psychological
study found that men who were very self- disclosing, and women who
were not very self-disclosing, were considered by others to be more
psychologically maladjusted than were nondisclosing men and disclosing
women.15 Such self- disclosure
gives away knowledge about oneself, putting women at an immediate
disadvantage relative to men: knowledge, as is often noted, is power.
inverse relationship between disclosure and power has been reported
in Goffman's earlier cited observations in a research hospital and
in other studies.16 Self-disclosure
is a means of enhancing another's power. When one person has greater
access to information about another person, he or she has a resource
the other person does not have. Thus, not only does power give status,
but also status gives power. And those possessing neither must contribute
to the power and status of others continuously.
factor adding to women's vulnerability is that they are socialized
to care more than men -- especially about personal relationships.
This puts them at a disadvantage, as Ross articulated in what he called
the Law of Personal Exploitation: "In any sentimental relation
the one who cares less can exploit the one who cares more." The
same idea was stated more broadly by Waller and Hill as the Principle
of Least Interest: "That person is able to dictate the conditions
of association whose interest in the continuation of the affair is
least."17 In other words,
women's caring, like their openness, gives them less power in a relationship.
way to indicate acceptance of one's place and deference to those of
superior status is to follow the rules of "personal space."
Sommer has observed that dominant animals and human beings have a
larger envelope of inviolability surrounding them -- i.e., they are
approached less closely -- than those of lower status.18
Various authors have subsequently shown that this rule applies between
men and women, with women both having smaller personal space than
men and tending to yield space to men when the two sexes come into
proximity.19 And women's time,
like their space, can be invaded readily.20
is one of the closer invasions of one's personal space, and in our
low-contact culture it implies privileged access to another person.
People who accidentally touch other people generally take great pains
to apologize; people forced into close proximity, for example, in
a crowded elevator, often go to extreme lengths to avoid touching.
Even the figurative meanings of the word convey a notion of access
to privileged areas -- e.g., to one's emotions (one is touched by
a sad story), or to one's purse (one is touched for ten dollars).
In addition, the act of touching can be a subtle physical threat.
the patterns that Brown found in terms of address, it is enlightening
to consider the interactions between pairs of persons of different
status, and to picture who would be more likely to touch the other
(put an arm around the shoulder or a hand on the back, tap the chest,
hold the arm, or the like): teacher and student; master and servant;
police officer and accused; doctor and patient; minister and parishioner;
adviser and advisee; supervisor and worker; business executive and
secretary. Again, we see that the form used by the status superior
-- touching -- is the form used between intimates of equal status.
It is considered presumptuous for a person of low status to initiate
touch, like first-naming, with a person of higher status.
earlier observational and self-report studies indicated that females
were touched more than males were, both as children (from six months
on) and as adults. but we need more evidence than this to conclude
that touching is associated with status; do other members of high-status
groups touch members of low-status groups more than the reverse? In
observations of incidents of touch in public urban places, higher-status
persons did touch lower-status persons significantly more. In particular,
men touched women more, even when all other variables were held constant.21
Not only behaviors, but also social interpretations of behavior associate
power/dominance with touch; as Hall notes, "People's beliefs,
anecdote, self-report, [and] observational studies of socioeconomic
status and age, and one true experiment favor either the power-privilege
idea or the idea that relative dominance increases as a consequence
of touch initiation."22
studies have attempted to determine whether the effect of touch on
perceptions of dominance is to increase the perceived dominance of
the toucher, decrease the perceived dominance of the person touched,
or both.23 Although the findings
have been mixed, the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that
touching affects the perceived dominance of both the toucher and the
touched. In an observational study in public places, researchers found
that when mixed-sex couples walked together in public, the female
was most often on the side of the male's dominant hand; that is, she
was on his right if he was right-handed and on his left if he was
left-handed. These researchers speculated that such "strong-arming"
reflected male dominance and would allow more convenient male touching
of the female.24
touching asymmetry becomes most ambiguous and problematic in heterosexual
situations when females may protest males' touch as presumptuous,
only to be told they are too "uptight." Female office, restaurant,
and factory workers and students are quite used to being touched by
their male superordinates, but they are expected not to "misinterpret"
such gestures as sexual advances. However, women who touch men may
be interpreted as conveying sexual intent, as they have often found
out when their intentions were quite otherwise. Such different interpretations
are consistent with the status patterns found earlier. If touching
indicates either power or intimacy, and women are deemed by men to
be status inferiors, touching by women will be perceived as a gesture
of intimacy, since power is not an acceptable interpretation.25
GAZE AND DOMINANCE
most studied nonverbal communication among humans is probably eye
contact, and here too we observe a sex difference. Researchers have
found repeatedly that women look more at another person in a dyad
than men do.26 Exline, Gray,
and Schuette suggest that "willingness to engage in mutual visual
interaction is more characteristic of those who are oriented towards
inclusive and affectionate interpersonal relations,"27
but Rubin concludes that while "gazing may serve as a vehicle
of emotional expression for women, [it] in addition may allow women
to obtain cues from their male partners concerning the appropriateness
of their behavior."28 This
interpretation is supported by the data of Efran and Broughton, which
show that male subjects too "maintain more eye contact with individuals
toward whom they have developed higher expectancies for social approval."29
then, may be indicative of some dependency and
subordination. However, looking can also be an aggressive and dominant
gesture, when it becomes a stare. Dovidio and Ellyson write, "In
humans as in other primates, the stare widely conveys messages of
interpersonal dominance and control. Research conducted over the past
60 years suggests that, in general, staring at another person is a
dominance gesture while breaking eye contact or not looking is a sign
of submission."30 How can
the same gesture -- looking at another -- indicate both dominance
and deference? Henley suggests that women may watch men when they
are not being looked at, but lower or avert their gaze when a man
looks at them, as submissive animals do when a dominant animal looks
as Dovidio and Ellyson point out, the meaning of gaze depends on the
context, and on the patterning of looking with other behaviors, most
notably with speaking. A series of experiments by Ellyson, Dovidio,
and their colleagues has developed a measure of "visual dominance":
the ratio of [looking at another while speaking[ to [looking at another
while listening]. In peer interaction, we tend to look while listening
more than we look while speaking; however, visually dominant people,
both men and women, have a greater proportion of look/speak to look/listen
than do nondominant people. People with higher status, expert power,
or an orientation to interpersonal control all showed higher visual
dominance ratios than did people without those characteristics. Gender
also affects visual dominance behavior: In an experiment with mixed-sex
pairs, both female and male experts showed greater visual dominance
in interaction with nonexperts; when there was no differential expertise,
men still showed greater visual dominance than did women.32
Like other tiny habits of which we are scarcely aware, women's "modest"
eye lowering can signal submission or subordinate position even when
that message is not intended.
VERBAL CUES TO DOMINANCE
of dominance and submission can be verbal as well as nonverbal. Subtle
verbal cues -- especially paralinguistic features, such as emphasis,
inflection, pitch, and noncontent sounds -- are often classified with
nonverbal ones in the study of interpersonal interaction, because
they have similar regulating functions aside from the traditional
verbal content. Other features of verbal interaction, such as frequency
and length of utterance, turn-taking patterns, interrupting, and allowing
interruption, also help to regulate interaction and to establish dominance.
verbalization itself can be a form of dominance, rendering someone
quite literally speechless by preventing that person from "getting
a word in edgewise." Contrary to popular myth, men talk more
than women, in both single-sex and mixed-sex groups. Within a group,
a major means of asserting dominance is to interrupt. Those who want
to dominate others interrupt more; those speaking will not permit
themselves to be interrupted by their inferiors, but they will give
way to those they consider their superiors.33
It is not surprising, therefore, that Zimmerman and West found, in
a sample of eleven natural conversations between women and men, that
forty-six of the forty-eight interruptions were by males; other research
on interruption consistently finds men interrupting more than women.34
verbal communication, we find a pattern of differences between the
sexes similar to that seen in nonverbal communication. It was observed
earlier in this article that men have the privilege of swearing and
hence have access to a vocabulary not customarily available to women.
On the surface, this seems to be an innocuous limitation, but it is
significant because of the psychological function of swearing: Swearing
is one of the most harmless and effective ways of expressing anger.
The common alternatives are to express one's feelings with physical
violence or to suppress them and by so doing turn the anger in on
oneself. The former is prohibited to both sexes (to different degrees),
but the latter is decidedly encouraged in women.
is perhaps the most obvious sex difference in language usage. Of course,
sex differences are also to be found in phonological, semantic, and
grammatical aspects of language as well as in word use.35
Austin, for example, has commented that "in our culture little
boys tend to be nasal . . . and little girls, oral," but that
in the "final stages" of courtship the voices of both men
and women are low and nasal.36
The pattern cited by Brown,37
in which the form appropriately used by status superiors is used between
status equals in intimate situations, is again visible: In the intimate
situation, the female adopts the vocal style of the male. In situations
in which intimacy is not a possible interpretation, it is not power
but abnormality that is the usual interpretation. Female voices are
expected to be soft and quiet -- even when men are using loud voices.
Women who do not fit this stereotype are often called loud -- a word
commonly applied derogatorily to other minority groups or out-groups.38
One of the most popular derogatory terms for women is shrill,
which, after all, simply means loud (applied to an out-group) and
GESTURES OF SUBMISSION
and LaFrance suggest that the nonverbal asymmetry of male and female
is paralleled by the asymmetry of racial/ethnic/cultural dominance.39
In any situation in which one group is seen as inferior to another,
they predict, that group will be more submissive, more readable (nonverbally
expressive), more sensitive (accurate in decoding another's nonverbal
expressions), and more accommodating (adapting to another's nonverbal
behaviors). How true this is for racially and ethnically oppressed
groups remains to be shown; in this review, however, we have seen
that these characteristics are among the nonverbal behaviors of females.
Recent research by Snodgrass supports the contention that decoding
sensitivity is associated with dominance and authority, rather than
with gender per se.40
verbal characteristics of persons in inferior status positions are
the tendencies to hesitate and apologize, often offered as submissive
gestures in the face of threats or potential threats. If staring directly,
pointing, and touching can be subtle nonverbal threats, the corresponding
gestures of submission seem to be lowering the eyes from another's
gaze, falling silent (or not beginning to speak at all) when interrupted
or pointed at, and cuddling to the touch. Many of these nonverbal
gestures of submission are very familiar. They are the traits our
society assigns as desirable characteristics of females. Girls who
have properly learned to be "feminine" have learned to lower
their eyes, to remain silent, to back down, and to cuddle at the appropriate
times. There is even a word for this syndrome that is applied only
to females: coy.
interaction is expressed through nonverbal communication: the caress,
the gaze, coming close to each other, the warm smile, smelling the
other, provocative postures and inviting gestures; much sexual contact,
unlike other forms of human interaction, is purely nonverbal. Sexual
interaction, like all interaction, is conditioned by the social context
in which it takes place. One particularly compelling aspect of that
social context is that males have more power, prestige, and status
than do females, a fact that cannot but affect heterosexual interaction.
If even casual relationships between females and males are caught
up in the social system in which males wield power over females, how
much more does this power system affect the sexual relationship, which
we consider the ultimate intimacy? In addition, in both heterosexual
and homosexual interactions, relationships are affected by other power
and status dimensions, such as work status, wealth, race, age, and
interpersonal dominance. This power too is often expressed nonverbally.
little has been written on nonverbal behavior, power, and sexuality
examined simultaneously. However, the research and ideas presented
earlier in this article may be applied to the sexual sphere. First,
much can be said about a sexual relationship after observing the mutuality
or nonmutuality of various gestures. For example, we may already believe
that the person who is more dominant in the relationship is the one
who takes a superior position in intercourse, the one around whose
pleasure sexual activity is structured, and the one upon whose climax
it is terminated. Beyond that, when gestures are not mutual (or not
balanced over time), one person may dominate by initiating touching,
hand-holding, and kissing; maintaining gaze; putting an arm around
the other's back when sitting; initiating moves to greater intimacy
in the course of a relationship or a single encounter; exerting more
influence over the couple's spacing, postures, and walking pace; getting
to hold hands with the preferred or dominant hand; having the hand
in front when walking holding hands; and terminating as well as initiating
hand-holding and kissing. Subordination may be expressed by the person
who shows more emotional expressivity, shows more facial and kinesic
activity, is more self-disclosing, accommodates timing and action
to the other, and exhibits the reciprocal behaviors of those described
questions of who touches, who initiates, and who terminates apply,
of course, to both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. However,
in the heterosexual relationship, we often have a good idea of what
the answers will be; in fact, heterosexual custom has prescribed male
leadership and dominance. But these are changing times, and many think
that few aspects of our society are changing faster than are sexual
relationships and female-male interactions. Many people today do not
wish to have unequal sexual relationships or to express sexual inequality
unconsciously. However, since we generally take body language for
granted and do not attend to it much, it may be hard to change: nonverbal
expressions may lag behind changes in attitudes, values, and ideas.
Slowness in changing this communication may keep us trapped in old
modes of expression and old modes of relationship. No matter how egalitarian
we may believe our relationships or sexual interactions to be, they
will have an edge of inequality and imbalance until we bring our nonverbal
expressions into line with our verbal ones.
DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SAME BEHAVIOR
differences between the sexes mean that many of the same traits and
actions are interpreted differently when displayed by each sex. A
man's behavior toward a woman might be interpreted as an expression
of either power or intimacy, depending on the situation. When the
same behavior is engaged in by a woman and directed toward a man,
it is more likely to be interpreted as a gesture of intimacy -- and
intimacy between the sexes is typically seen as sexual in nature.
Recent research confirms that, when women display dominance gestures
to men, they are rated higher on sexuality and lower in dominance
than men are rated when making the same gestures to women.41
Because our society's values say that women should not have power
over men, women's nonverbal communication is rarely interpreted as
an expression of power. If the situation precludes a sexual interpretation,
women's assumption of the male prerogative may be dismissed as deviant
(castrating, domineering, unfeminine, or the like). Women in supervisory
positions thus often have a difficult time asserting their power nonverbally
-- gestures that are socially recognized as expressions of power when
used by male supervisors may be denied or misinterpreted when used
of the significance of nonverbal communication can help us to understand
not only others' gestures but also our own, giving us a basis for
social and personal change. However, just because certain gestures
associated with males are responded to as powerful, women need not
automatically adopt them. Rather than accepting "masculine"
values without question, individual women will want to consider what
they wish to express and how, and they will determine whether to adopt
particular gestures or to insist that their own be responded to appropriately.
There has been growing pressure on women to alter their verbal and
nonverbal behavior42 to the words
and movements of "power" -- i.e., to those associated with
men -- often with little thought of the implications. It would be
mistaken to assume that such gestures are automatically better and
that it is only women who should change. Revealing emotions rather
than remaining wooden-faced and unexpressive, for example, may be
seen as weak when only one person in an interaction is doing it; but,
in the long run, openness and expressivity -- by all people -- may
be better for the individual, the interpersonal relationship, and
the society. Women who wish to change their nonverbal behavior can
monitor it in various situations to determine when it contradicts
their intention or is otherwise a disservice, and only then change.
They will wish to keep those behaviors that give them strength, whether
those behaviors are traditionally associated with women or with men.
(c) 1995 by Nancy Henley and Jo Freeman
Michael Argyle, Veronica Salter, Hilary Nicholson, Marilyn Williams,
and Philip Burgess, "The Communication of Interior and Superior
Attitudes by Verbal and Non-Verbal Signals," British Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9 (1970), 222- 31.
Robert Rosenthal, Judith A. Hall, M. Robin DiMatteo, Peter L.
Rogers, and Dane Archer, Sensitivity to Nonverbal Communication:
The PONS Test, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979);
Judith Hall, Nonverbal Sex Differences: Communication Accuracy
and Expressive Style, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
Erving Goffman, Gender Advertisements, (New York: Harper
and Row, 1979).
The term power is used here to mean social power, the ability
to influence the behavior of others based on access to and control
of resources; status refers to acknowledged prestige rankings within
the social group; dominance is used to refer to a psychological tendency
(desire to dominate) and immediate pairwise influence (rather than
general social value or influence).
Erving Goffman, "The Nature of Deference and Demeanor,"
American Anthropologist, 58 (1956), 473- 502; reprinted in
Erving Goffman, Interaction Ritual, (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor,
Several studies are described in Roger Brown, Social Psychology,
(Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1965), 51-100.
For discussion of these rules vis-à-vis women and men,
see Sally McConnell-Ginet, "Address Forms in Sexual Politics,"
in Douglas Butturff and Edmund L. Epstein (eds.), Women's Language
and Style, (Akron, Ohio: University of Akron Press, 1978), 23-35.
Nancy M Henley, Body Politics: Power, Sex, and Nonverbal
Communication, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977).
Marianne Wex, Let's Take Back Our Space: "Female"
and "Male" Body Language as a Result of Patriarchal Structures
(Hamburg: Frauenliteraturverlag Hermine Fees, 1979).
See also Susan J. Frances, "Sex Differences in Nonverbal
Behavior," Sex Roles, 5 (1979), 519-35; Irene H. Frieze
and Sheila J. Ramsey, "Nonverbal Maintenance of Traditional Sex
Roles," Journal of Social Issues, 32, no. 3 (1976), 133-41;
Marianne LaFrance and Clara Mayo, "A Review of Nonverbal Behaviors
of Women and Men," Western Journal of Speech Communication,
43 (1979), 96- 107; Clara Mayo and Nancy M. Henley (eds.), Gender
and Nonverbal Behavior (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1981); Shirley
Weitz, "Sex Differences in Nonverbal Communication," Sex
Roles, 2 (1976), 175-84.
William L. O'Neill, Everyone Was Brave: The Rise and Fall
of Feminism, (Chicago: Quadrangle, 1969), 270.
Judith A. Hall, Nonverbal Sex Differences, (Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984), 53.
Paul D. Cherulnik, "Sex Differences in the Expression of
Emotion in a Structured Social Encounter," Sex Roles,
5 (1979), 413-24.
Eugenia P. Gerdes, John D. Gehling, and Jeffrey N. Rapp, "The
Effects of Sex and Sex-Role Concept on Self-Disclosure," Sex
Roles, 7 (1981), 989-98.
Valerian J. Derlega, Bonnie Durham, Barbara Gockel, and David
Sholis, "Sex Differences in Self-Disclosure: Effects of Topic
Content, Friendship, and Partner's Sex," Sex Roles, 7
(1981), 433- 47.
For example, see Dan I. Slobin, Stephen H. Miller, and Lyman
W. Porter, "Forms of Address and Social Relations in a Business
Organization," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
8 (1968), 289-93.
Edward Alsworth Ross, Principles of Sociology, (New York:
Century, 1921), 136. Willard W. Waller and Rubin Hill, The Family:
A Dynamic Interpretation, (New York: Dryden, 1951), 191.
Robert Sommer, Personal Space, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1969), Chapter 2.
For example, see Frieze and Ramsey, "Nonverbal Maintenance
of Traditional Sex Roles"; Henley, Body Politics, Chapter
2; Nancy M. Henley and Marianne LaFrance, "Gender as Culture:
Difference and Dominance in Nonverbal Behavior," in Aaron Wolfgang
(ed.), Nonverbal Behavior: Perspectives, Applications, Intercultural
Insights, (Lewiston, N.Y.: C. J. Hogrefe, 1984), 351-71.
Henley, Body Politics, Chapter 3.
Henley, Body Politics, Chapter 7. See also Brenda Major,
Anne Marie Schmidlin, and Lynne Williams, "Gender Patterns in
Social Touch: The Impact of Setting and Age," Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 58 (1990), 634-43.
Hall, Nonverbal Sex Differences, 117.
Diana L. Summerhayes and Robert W. Suchner, "Power Implications
of Touch in Male-Female Relationships," Sex Roles, 4 (1978),
103-10. Brenda Major and Richard Heslin, "Perceptions of Cross-Sex
and Same-Sex Nonreciprocal Touch: It is Better to Give than to Receive,"
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6 (1982), 148-62. Nancy M. Henley
and Sean Harmon, "The Nonverbal Semantics of Power and Gender,"
in Steve L. Ellyson and John F. Dovidio (eds.), Power, Dominance
and Nonverbal Behavior, (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1985), 151-64.
Michael A. Goldberg and Barry Katz, "The Effect of Nonreciprocated
and Reciprocated Touch on Power/Dominance Perception," Journal
of Social Behavior and Personality, 5 (1990), 379-86.
Richard J. Borden and Gorden M. Homleid, "Handedness and
Lateral Positioning in Heterosexual Couples: Are Men Still Strongarming
Women?" Sex Roles, 4 (1978), 67-73.
Henley, Body Politics, Chapter 11.
Both Henley, Body Politics, Chapter 9, and Judith A Hall
and Amy G. Halberstadt, "Smiling and Gazing," in Janet S.
Hyde and Mark C. Linn (eds.) The Psychology of Gender: Advances
Through Meta-Analysis, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1986), have reviewed this research, though they arrive at different
conclusions. See also John F. Dovidio and Steve L. Ellyson, "Patterns
of Visual Dominance Behavior in Humans," in Steve L. Ellyson
and John F. Dovidio (eds.), Power, Dominance and Nonverbal Behavior,
(New York: Springer-Verlag, 1985), 129-49.
Ralph Exline, David Gray, and Dorothy Schuette, "Visual
Behavior in a Dyad as Affected by Interview Control and Sex of Respondent,"
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1 (1965), 201-9;
Zick Rubin, "Measurement of Romantic Love," Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 16 (1970), 265-73; quotation
Jay S. Efran and Andrew Broughton, "Effect of Expectancies
for Social Approval on Visual Behavior," Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 4 (1966), 103-7; quotation 103.
Dovidio and Ellyson, "Patterns of Visual Dominance Behavior,"
Henley, Body Politics, Chapter 9.
Dovidio and Ellyson, "Patterns of Visual Dominance Behavior."
See also John F. Dovidio, Clifford E. Brown, Karen Heltman, Steve
L. Ellyson, and Caroline F. Keating, "Power Displays between
Women and Men in Discussion of Gender-Linked Tasks: A Multichannel
Study," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
55 (1988), 580-87; John F. Dovidio, Steve L. Ellyson, Caroline F.
Keating, Karen Heltman, and Clifford E. Brown, "The Relationship
of Social Power to Visual Displays of Dominance Between Men and Women,"
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (1988), 233-42.
Barbara Eakins and Gene Eakins, "Verbal Turn-taking and
Exchanges in Faculty Dialogue," in Betty Lou Dubois and Isabel
Crouch (eds.), Papers in Southwest English IV: Proceedings of the
Conference on the Sociology of the Languages of American Women
(San Antonio, Tex.: Trinity University Press, 1976), 53-62.
Don Zimmerman and Candace West, "Sex Roles, Interruptions
and Silences in Conversation," in Barrie Thorne and Nancy Henley
(eds.), Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance, (Rowley,
Mass.: Newbury House, 1975), 105-29. See also Candace West and Don
Zimmerman, "Small Insults: A Study of Interruptions in Cross-Sex
Conversations between Unacquainted Persons," in Barrie Thorne,
Cheris Kramarae, and Nancy Henley (eds.), Language, Gender and
Society, (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, 1983), 102-17.
See, for example, M. R. Key, Male/Female Language, (Metuchen,
N.J.: Scarecrow, 1975); see also Cheris Kramarae, Women and Men
Speaking, (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, 1981); Thorne, Kramarae,
and Henley (eds.), Language, Gender and Society, Robin Lakoff,
Language and Woman's Place, (New York: Harper and Row, 1975);
Sally McConnell-Ginet, Ruth Borker, and Nelly Furman (eds.), Women
and Language in Literature and Society, (New York: Praeger, 1980);
and Barrie Thorne and Nancy Henley (eds.), Language and Sex: Difference
and Dominance, (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, 1975).
William M. Austin, "Some Social Aspects of Paralanguage,"
Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 11 (1965), 31-39; quotations,
Brown, Social Psychology.
Austin, "Some Social Aspects of Paralanguage," 38.
Nancy M. Henley and Marianne LaFrance, "Gender as Culture:
Difference and Dominance in Nonverbal Behavior," in Aaron Wolfgang
(ed.), Nonverbal Behavior: Perspectives, Applications, Intercultural
Insights, (Lewiston, N.Y.: C. J. Hogrefe, 1984), 351-71.
Sara E. Snodgrass, "Women's Intuition: The Effect of Subordinate
Role upon Interpersonal Sensitivity," Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 49 (1985), 146-55; Sara E. Snodgrass, "Further
Perceptual Study," in Steve L. Ellyson and John F. Dovidio (eds.)
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 (1992)m 154-158.
Nancy M. Henley and Sean Harmon, "The Nonverbal Semantics
of Power and Gender: A Perceptual Study," in Steve L. Ellyson
and John F. Dovidio (eds.), Power, Dominance, and Nonverbal Behavior,
(New York: Springer-Verlag, 1985), 151-64.
E.g.: Robin Lakoff, Language and Woman's Place, Lynn
Z. Bloom, Karen Coburn, and Joan Pearlman, The New Assertive Women,
(New York: Dell, 1976).