Attributing the sources of accuracy in unequal-power dyadic communication : Who is better and why?

Abstract A study was conducted to assess accuracy of deliberate nonverbal communication of affective messages between individuals assigned to different power roles within dyads. In phase 1, participants ( N  = 158) were assigned to unequal- or to equal-power roles and asked to send positive, negative, and neutral messages to their partner using nonverbal cues while the partner guessed which kind of message it was. In phase 2, naive decoders ( N  = 294) made judgments of the videotapes from phase 1 to resolve the confounding of sender and decoder factors in the within-dyad communication paradigm. Results showed that subordinates were more accurate at decoding superiors than vice versa, and that this difference was due to subordinates sending less clear messages to superiors than superiors sent to subordinates. Comparison with the equal-power group’s expressions revealed that the subordinates’ expressions were also less clear than those sent by the equal-power group.

[1]  Cameron Anderson,et al.  The experience of power: examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[2]  R. Rosenthal.  Sensitivity to Nonverbal Communication: The PONS Test , 1979 .

[3]  Sara D. Hodges,et al.  Gender Differences, Motivation, and Empathic Accuracy: When it Pays to Understand , 2001 .

[4]  A. Koerner,et al.  Nonverbal communication and marital adjustment and satisfaction: the role of decoding relationship relevant and relationship irrelevant affect , 2002 .

[5]  Judith A. Hall,et al.  Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: a meta-analysis. , 2005, Psychological bulletin.

[6]  S. Snodgrass,et al.  Women's intuition: The effect of subordinate role on interpersonal sensitivity. , 1985 .

[7]  S. Snodgrass.  Further effects of role versus gender on interpersonal sensitivity. , 1992 .

[8]  Frank J. Bernieri,et al.  Toward a histology of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream , 2000 .

[9]  A. Wolfgang.  Nonverbal behavior : perspectives, applications, intercultural insights , 1984 .

[10]  When power does not corrupt: superior individuation processes among powerful perceivers. , 2001 .

[11]  P. Connor-Greene.  Book Review: Women and Gender: Transforming Psychology. Janice D. Yoder. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 450 pp., $48 , 2001 .

[12]  Judith A. Hall,et al.  “Subordination” and sensitivity to nonverbal cues: A study of married working women , 1994 .

[13]  Judith A. Hall,et al.  When Is Dominance Related to Smiling? Assigned Dominance, Dominance Preference, Trait Dominance, and Gender as Moderators , 2004 .

[14]  Henderikus J. Stam,et al.  Power/gender : social relations in theory and practice , 1994 .

[15]  L. Tiedens,et al.  Power moves: complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[16]  Judith A. Hall,et al.  Status Roles and Recall of Nonverbal Cues , 2001 .

[17]  Daniel O. Segall,et al.  Personality and the enactment of emotion , 1980 .

[18]  P. Noller.  Misunderstandings in marital communication: A study of couples' nonverbal communication. , 1980 .

[19]  E. Aries,et al.  Men and Women in Interaction: Reconsidering the Differences , 1996 .

[20]  N. Henley,et al.  Body Politics: Power, Sex, and Nonverbal Communication , 1977 .

[21]  S. Nowicki,et al.  Individual differences in the nonverbal communication of affect: The diagnostic analysis of nonverbal accuracy scale , 1994 .

[22]  Effects of power on perceived and objective group variability: evidence that more powerful groups are more variable. , 2002 .

[23]  Judith A. Hall,et al.  Assigned and Felt Status in Relation to Observer-Coded and Participant-Reported Smiling , 2002 .

[24]  J. Yoder.  Women and Gender: Transforming Psychology , 1998 .

[25]  Judith A. Hall,et al.  Status, Gender, and Nonverbal Behavior: A Study of Structured Interactions between Employees of a Company , 1999 .

[26]  P. Philippot,et al.  The social context of nonverbal behavior , 1999 .

[27]  N. Henley,et al.  Gender as culture: Difference and dominance in nonverbal behavior. , 1984 .

[28]  M. Dimatteo,et al.  A study of the relationship between individual differences in nonverbal expressiveness and factors of personality and social interaction , 1980 .

[29]  M. Crawford,et al.  Women and Gender: A Feminist Psychology , 1992 .

[30]  Joel Cooper,et al.  Understanding Social Psychology , 1979 .

[31]  R. Riggio.  Interpersonal sensitivity research and organizational psychology: Theoretical and methodological applications. , 2001 .

[32]  M. W. Matlin.  Psychology of Women , 2003, Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences.

[33]  Frank J. Bernieri,et al.  Interpersonal Sensitivity : Theory and Measurement , 2001 .

[34]  M. Hecht,et al.  Interpersonal sensitivity: expressivity or perceptivity? , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[35]  Bernd Simon,et al.  Perceived intragroup homogeneity in minority-majority contexts. , 1987 .

[36]  Judith A. Hall,et al.  “Subordination” and Nonverbal Sensitivity: A Study and Synthesis of Findings Based on Trait Measures , 1997 .

[37]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Interpersonal Perception: A Social Relations Analysis , 1988 .

[38]  S. Fiske,et al.  Controlling other people. The impact of power on stereotyping. , 1993, The American psychologist.

[39]  Cameron Anderson,et al.  Power, Approach, and Inhibition , 2003 .