Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:10:15.393Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - The Vertical Dimension of Social Signaling

from Part I - Conceptual Models of Social Signals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2017

By
Marianne Schmid Mast  and
Judith A. Hall
Edited by
Judee K. Burgoon ,
Nadia Magnenat-Thalmann ,
Maja Pantic  and
Alessandro Vinciarelli
Marianne Schmid Mast
Affiliation:
University of Lausanne
Judith A. Hall
Affiliation:
Northeastern University
Judee K. Burgoon
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Nadia Magnenat-Thalmann
Affiliation:
Université de Genève
Maja Pantic
Affiliation:
Imperial College London
Alessandro Vinciarelli
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow
Get access

Summary

Interpersonal interactions and relationships can be described as unfolding along two perpendicular dimensions: verticality (power, dominance, control; Burgoon & Hoobler, 2002; Hall, Coats, & LeBeau, 2005) and horizontality (affiliativeness, warmth, friendliness; Kiesler, 1983;Wiggins, 1979). The vertical dimension refers to how much control or influence people can exert, or believe they can exert, over others, as well as the status relations created by social class, celebrity, respect, or expertise. Numerous earlier authors have discussed variations and differences within the verticality concept (e.g., Burgoon & Dunbar, 2006; Burgoon, Johnson, & Koch, 1998; Ellyson & Dovidio, 1985; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003).

Social control aspects are prevalent in many social relationships and interactions, not only in formal hierarchies such as in the military or in organizations; there is also a difference in social control between parents and their children, and husbands and wives can have different degrees of power in their relationships. Even within groups of friends or peers, a hierarchy emerges regularly.

Verticality encompasses terms such as power, status, dominance, authority, or leadership. Although different concepts connote different aspects of the vertical dimension, their common denominator is that they are all indicative of the amount of social control or influence and thus of the vertical dimension. Structural power or formal authority describes the difference in social control or influence with respect to social or occupational functions or positions (Ellyson & Dovidio, 1985) (e.g., first officer). Status refers to the standing on the verticality dimension stemming from being a member of a specific social group (e.g., being a man versus a woman) (Pratto et al., 1994). Status also means being awarded a high position on the verticality dimension by others (e.g., emergent leader) (Berger, Conner, & Fisek, 1974). The term dominance (also authority) is used to describe a personality trait of striving for or of having high social control (Ellyson & Dovidio, 1985). Dominance is also used to denote behavior that is aimed at social control (Schmid Mast, 2010). Leadership is the influence on group members to achieve a common goal (Bass, 1960). In a given social situation, different verticality aspects can either converge or diverge. A company leader has high structural power but his or her interaction or leadership style can express more or less dominance.

Type
Chapter
Information
Social Signal Processing , pp. 34 - 45
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, D. E., DePaulo, B., Ansfield, M., Tickle, J., & Green, E. (1999). Beliefs about cues to deception: Mindless stereotypes or untapped wisdom? Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23(1), 67–89. doi: 10.1023/A:1021387326192.Google Scholar
Antonakis, J. & Dalgas, O. (2009). Predicting elections: Child's play! Science, 323(5918), 1183. doi: 10.1126/science.1167748.Google Scholar
Barnes, M. L. & Sternberg, R. J. (1989). Social intelligence and decoding of nonverbal cues. Intelligence, 13(3), 263–287. doi: Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1016/0160-2896(89)90022-6.Google Scholar
Bass, B. M. (1960). Leadership, Psychology, and Organizational Behavior. Oxford: Harper.
Bente, G., Leuschner, H., Issa, A. A., & Blascovich, J. J. (2010). The others: Universals and cultural specificities in the perception of status and dominance from nonverbal behavior. Consciousness and Cognition, 19(3), 762–777. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.06.006.Google Scholar
Berger, J., Conner, T. L., & Fisek, H. (1974). Expectation States Theory: A Theoretical Research Program. Cambridge: Winthrop.
Bombari, D., Schmid, P. C., Schmid Mast, M., et al. (2013). Emotion recognition: The role of featural and configural face information. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2013.789065.Google Scholar
Burgoon, J. K. & Dunbar, N. E. (2006). Nonverbal expressions of dominance and power in human relationships. In V. P., Manusov & M. L., Patterson (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of Nonverbal Communication (pp. 279–297). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Burgoon, J. K. & Hoobler, G. D. (2002). Nonverbal signals. In M. L., Knapp & J. A., Daly (Eds), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 240–299). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Burgoon, J. K., Johnson, M. L., & Koch, P. T. (1998). The nature and measurement of interpersonal dominance. Communication Monographs, 65, 308–335. doi: 10.1080/ 03637759809376456.Google Scholar
Carney, D. R., Hall, J. A., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Beliefs about the nonverbal expression of social power. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29(2), 105–123. doi: 10.1007/s10919-005-2743-z.Google Scholar
Dovidio, J. F., Brown, C. E., Heltman, K., Ellyson, S. L., & Keating, C. F. (1988). Power displays between women and men in discussions of gender-linked tasks: A multichannel study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(4), 580–587. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.580.Google Scholar
Dovidio, J. F. & Ellyson, S. L. (1982). Decoding visual dominance behavior: Attributions of power based on the relative percentages of looking while speaking and looking while listening. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45(2), 106–113.Google Scholar
Dunbar, N. E. & Burgoon, J. K. (2005). Perceptions of power and interactional dominance in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(2), 207–233. doi: 10.1177/0265407505050944.Google Scholar
Ellyson, S. L. & Dovidio, J. F. (1985). Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior: Basic concepts and issues. In S. L., Ellyson & J. F., Dovidio (Eds), Power, Dominance, and Nonverbal Behavior (pp. 1–27). New York: Springer.
Ellyson, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Corson, R. L., & Vinicur, D. L. (1980). Visual dominance behavior in female dyads: Situational and personality factors. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43(3), 328– 336.Google Scholar
Exline, R. V., Ellyson, S. L., & Long, B. D. (1975). Visual behavior as an aspect of power role relationships. In P., Pliner, L.|Krames & T., Alloway (Eds), Advances in the Study of Communication and Affect (vol. 2, pp. 21–52). New York: Plenum.
Fast, N. J. & Chen, S. (2009). When the boss feels inadequate: Power, incompetence, and aggression. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1406–1413. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02452.x.Google Scholar
Fast, N. J., Halevy, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). The destructive nature of power without status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 391–394. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.013. Google Scholar
Fast, N. J., Sivanathan, N., Mayer, N. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Power and overconfident decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(2), 249–260. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.009. Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T. & Dépret, E. (1996). Control, interdependence and power: Understanding social cognition in its social context. European Review of Social Psychology, 7(1), 31–61. doi: 10.1080/14792779443000094.Google Scholar
Galinsky, A. D.,Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1068–1074. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x.Google Scholar
Goodwin, S. A., Gubin, A., Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2000). Power can bias impression processes: Stereotyping subordinates by default and by design. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 227–256. doi: 10.1177/1368430200003003001.Google Scholar
Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 898–924. doi: 10.1037/0033- 2909.131.6.898.Google Scholar
Hall, J. A., Rosip, J. C., LeBeau, L. S., Horgan, T. G., & Carter, J. D. (2006). Attributing the sources of accuracy in unequal-power dyadic communication: Who is better and why? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(1), 18–27. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.01.005.Google Scholar
Hall, J. A., Schmid Mast, M., & Latu, I. M. (2015). The vertical dimension of social relations and accurate interpersonal perception: A meta-analysis. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39(2), 131–163.Google Scholar
Henley, N. & Harmon, S. (1985). The nonverbal semantics of power and gender: A perceptual study. In S., Ellyson & J., Dovidio (Eds), Power, Dominance, and Nonverbal Behavior (pp. 151– 164). New York: Springer.
Jayagopi, D. B., Hung, H., Chuohao, Y., & Gatica-Perez, D. (2009). Modeling dominance in group conversations using nonverbal activity cues. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 17(3), 501–513. doi: 10.1109/TASL.2008.2008238.Google Scholar
Kalma, A. (1992). Gazing in triads: A powerful signal in floor apportionment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 21–39. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00953.x.Google Scholar
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265.Google Scholar
Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90(3), 185–214. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.90.3.185.Google Scholar
Knapp, M. L., Hall,, J. A., & Horgan,, T. G. (2014). Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction (8th edn). Boston: Watsworth.
Moeller, S. K., Lee, E. A. E., & Robinson, M. D. (2011). You never think about my feelings: Interpersonal dominance as a predictor of emotion decoding accuracy. Emotion, 11(4), 816– 824. doi: 10.1037/a0022761.Google Scholar
Murphy, N. A. (2005). Using thin slices for behavioral coding. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29(4), 235–246. doi: 10.1007/s10919-005-7722-x.
Murphy, N. A., Hall, J. A., Schmid Mast, M., et al. (2013). Reliability and validity of nonverbal thin slices in social interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(2), 199–213.Google Scholar
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741.Google Scholar
Riggio, R. E. (2001). Interpersonal sensitivity research and organizational psychology: Theoretical and methodological applications. In J. A., Hall & F. J., Bernieri (Eds), Interpersonal Sensitivity: Theory and Measurement (pp. 305317). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rosenthal,, R. (Ed.) (1979). Skill in Nonverbal Communication: Individual Differences. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, & Hain.
Rule, N. O. & Ambady, N. (2008). The face of success: Inferences from chief executive officers' appearance predict company profits. Psychological Science, 19(2), 109–111. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02054.x.Google Scholar
Sanchez-Cortes, D., Aran, O., Schmid Mast, M., & Gatica-Perez, D. (2010). Identifying emergent leadership in small groups using nonverbal communicative cues. Paper presented at the International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces and the Workshop on Machine Learning for Multimodal Interaction, Beijing, China.
Schmid, P. C. & Schmid Mast, M. (2013). Power increases performance in a social evaluation situation as a result of decreased stress responses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(3), 201–211. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1937.Google Scholar
Schmid Mast, M. (2002). Dominance as expressed and inferred through speaking time. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 420–450. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00814.x.Google Scholar
Schmid Mast, M. (2010). Interpersonal behaviour and social perception in a hierarchy: The interpersonal power and behaviour model. European Review of Social Psychology, 21(1), 1–33. doi: 10.1080/10463283.2010.486942.Google Scholar
Schmid Mast, M. & Hall, J. A. (2003). Anybody can be a boss but only certain people make good subordinates: Behavioral impacts of striving for dominance and dominance aversion. Journal of Personality, 71(5), 871–892. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.7105007.Google Scholar
Schmid Mast, M., & Hall, J. A. (2004). Who is the boss and who is not? Accuracy of judging status. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28(3), 145–165. doi: 10.1023/B:JONB.0000039647. 94190.21.Google Scholar
Schmid Mast, M., Jonas, K., & Hall, J. A. (2009). Give a person power and he or she will show interpersonal sensitivity: The phenomenon and its why and when. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(5), 835–850. doi: 10.1037/a0016234.Google Scholar
Smith, P. K. & Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you're in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 578–596. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.578.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, S. E., Hecht, M. A., & Ploutz-Snyder, R. (1998). Interpersonal sensitivity: Expressivity or perceptivity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 238–249. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.238.Google Scholar
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 395–412. doi: 10.1037/0022- 3514.37.3.395.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×