SEX DIFFERENTIAL IN NON - RECIPROCAL TOUCHING
AS RELATED TO DOMINANCE AND LIKING

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
JANE HENNESSY
1976

v-'— H"...

Mchigasz .3; . :3
University

 

IWWWWT

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

SEX DIFFERENTIAL IN NON-RECIPROCAL TOUCHING AS
RELATED TO DOMINANCE AND LIKING
BY

Jane Hennessy

The present study attempted to determine the relation-
ship between touching, dominance and a liking relationship.
To test this, subjects were shown a 5-minute videotape of
a conversation between a male and a female college student.
It was hypothesized that a male toucher and liker as well as
a female toucher and liker would be perceived as more
affectionate individuals and their touch initiation would
be attributed to their affectionate disposition. A male
toucher with a female liker was expected to be perceived as
a more dominant and assertive individual while his touching
would be attributed to a dominant disposition. A female
toucher with a male liker was hypothesized to be perceived
as a flirtatious individual and the touching to be attri-
buted to sexual attraction. Also, it was expected that
female touch initiators would be given more dispositional

attributions due to their out-of-role behavior. It was

also predicted that the liker, regardless of sex, would be

perceived as more affectionate and less dominant and the

Jane Hennessy

one who was liked more would be perceived as more dominant
and less affectionate. Results indicated that these pre-
dicted hypotheses held true on some of the scales but were
not consistent across all the dependent measures. The
results were discussed in terms of attribution theory,

vicarious reinforcement and the theory of least interest.

SEX DIFFERENTIAL IN NON-RECIPROCAL TOUCHING AS

RELATED TO DOMINANCE AND LIKING

BY

Jane Hennessy

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

1976

TO MICHAEL

for what you are to me

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express sincere appreciation to Michael
Balter, David Dishneau, Michael Jenkins, Stephanie Owen,
Renee Wallis and Karen Weisfeld for their help in data
gathering, and to Sue Weesner for her secretarial assistance.

I also wish to thank Dr. Barbara Riemer for her
guidance.

Special thanks go to my mother for all her support.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
List Of Tables 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 v
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Dependent Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Results 0 O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 27

Semantic Differential and Adjective Checklist
Characterizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Attributions on the Basis of Liking and Sex

of Stimulus Person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Dispositional/Situational Attributions . . . . . 29
Dominance Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Main Effects for Asymmetrical Liking . . . . . . 29
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

List of References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 44

iv

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Interaction Effects for Toucher and Liker
on Semantic Differential Scales . . . . . . . 31

Chi Square Values for Significant Toucher/
Liker Interaction Effects on Adjective
Cheeklist I O O O n O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 32

Main Effects for Asymmetrical Liking on
Semantic Differential Scales . . . . . . . . 33

INTRODUCTION

Communication with others involves not only verbali-
zation but also various types of nonverbal cues. Nonverbal
communication is a form of communication, like verbal com-
munication, used by others to determine and express feelings,
intentions, and relationships between people.

Social psychological research has primarily concené'
trated on nonverbal communication as a dependent variable,
trying to show a relationship between a particular form of
nonverbal communication and a particular relationship
between people. After considering two problems associated
with establishing these relationships between a particular
behavior and relationship between people, I will give a
brief overview of the previous research done in the area.

First, most of the nonverbal behaviors have been
measured unobtrusively. While this form of measurement
may give one unbiased scores because it avoids the response
bias of acquiescence, interviewer effects or making a'
socially desirable response, it can, however, create dif-
ficulty determining validity. One does not really know
that one is measuring. For example, pupil dilation has
been used as an indicator of liking in a relationship, but
it also has been studied in a variety of methods. The use
of a multiple measures approach may help alleviate the

1

validity problem. According to Webb, Campbell, Schwartz,
and Sechrest [1966] when multiple operations provide Con-
sistent results, the possibility of slippage between the
conceptual definition and the Operational specification is
diminished greatly. An example to illustrate the multiple
measures approach is provided by Shadegg [1964]. He de-
scribes how one campaign manager used every available means
to learn the plans of his opponent who was unwilling to
grant an interview. One method arranged for procuring the
contents of his opponent's wastebasket. There he obtained
carbon c0pies of letters and memos in the handwriting of
his opponent's manager. Another method involved making
inferences drawn from observations of the opponent's public
acts. Each method aided the other by providing a validity
check.

The second limitation of unobtrusive measurement is
that much of the research has been observational and corre-
lational which seems to allow for increased diversity of
meaning of nonverbal cues and to be less specific in nature.
The present study was conducted using the experimental
method in an attempt to be more scientific and systematic.
(The study was to establish the relationship between the
nonverbal behavior of touching and liking and dominance)

I will give a brief overview of the research linking non-

verbal behaviors to liking and dominance.

Eye Contact

 

There are studies which indicate that eye contact is
associated with greater liking [Berscheid and Walster, 1969;
Ellsworth and Carlsmith, 1968; Rubin, 1973; Exline and
Winters, 1965] as well as with dominance [Ellsworth,
Carlsmith and Henson, 1972; Hutt and Ounsted, 1966].

Berscheid and Walster [1969] used the frequency of
glances as a measurement procedure and found it correlated
positively with an individual's reported liking for another,
and with the extent to which he reported a desire to ini—
tiate or maintain his interaction with the other.

Rubin [1973] tested the prediction that love and eye
contact would be positively related. Results indicated
that "strong love" couples (determined by his liking and
love scales) made significantly more eye contact than did
"weak love" couples.

Exline and Winters [1965] indicated that, after male
and female subjects chose one person over another after a
period in which he/she had interacted with two persons
together, the difference between the frequency of eye~
engagement with the preferred same-sexed interviewer and
the nonpreferred interviewer increased significantly.

Researchers have also looked at the other side of the
question, that is, will individuals like someone who looks
into their eyes more than someone who does not? Ellsworth

and Carlsmith [1968] supported the hypothesis that the

amount of eye contact in a dyadic interaction can positively
change a subject's reaction to the other person by showing
that female subjects liked the female interviewer signi-
ficantly more when she looked them in the eyes.

Looking at eye contact from a different perspective,
i.e., relating it to a dominance rather than liking rela-
tionship between people, Ellsworth et a1. [1972] substan—
tiated that in field studies with pedestrians crossing the
street, the stare can be perceived as an aggressive gesture
while Hutt and Ounsted [1966], in a study involving autistic
children looking at various model faces, indicated that the
averted glance may be a gesture of submission.

One may wonder why eye contact communicated liking in
one instance and dominance or submission in another or
perhaps both in some instances. One possible explanation
[Henley, 1973a, 1973b, 1973c] may be the power or status
differential between the parties. If one is of higher
status or power and no attraction element is involved,
perhaps submission and dominance may be evident. If, on
the other hand, similar status is perceived and attraction

is plausible, then liking may be communicated.

Pupil Dilation

 

Similarly, studies [Hess and Polt, 1960; Hess, 1965;'
and Stass and Willis, 1969] indicate that pupil dilation

may be related to feelings toward people or objects.

However, it may be difficult to determine exactly what
feeling is conveyed by the pupil dilation. Hess and Polt
[1960] and Hess [1965] found that the pupils dilated more
when male and female subjects were looking at pleasurable
or interesting stimuli. In addition, Stass and Willis
[1969] found that both male and female subjects chose, as
either someone they could trust or they found pleasant
and easy to talk to, an eye-contact partner significantly
more often than a non-eye-contact partner, and that they
also chose a pupil dilated partner of the other gender

over the nondilated partner.

Physical Proximity and Seating Position

 

Various researchers [Byrne, Ervin and Lamberth, 1970;
Kiesler and Goldberg, 1968; Cook, 1970; Little, 1965; Byrne,
1961] have found that physical proximity and closeness of
seating positions may be sensitive measures of attraction
and liking while others [Henderson and Lyons,1972];Sommer,
1969; and Willis, 1966] have indicated these to be measures
of dominance or personal Space violation.

Byrne et a1. [1970] reported that the more mixed-sex
couples liked each other the closer they stood. Also Little
[1965] reported male and female subjects placed figures
described as same-sexed friends closer together than fig-
ures described as strangers. Kiesler and Goldberg [1968]

also found that male subjects indicated they would sit

closer to an individual to whom they were more attracted.
Cook [1970] obtained similar findings in field observations.

By manipulating seating patterns in college classes
of both males and females, Byrne [1961] was able to separate
the important question of "does physical proximity create
attraction" from the correlational question of "do people
who like each other interact at a closer physical proximity
than those who do not?" Byrne [1961] found that a signifi-
cantly higher proportion of same—sex seat neighbors than
nonneighbors indicated attraction to one another.

Thus, it is hypothesized by many, and confirmed by
some that the less physical distance there is between two
individuals the more likely they will become attracted to
each other [Berscheid and Walster, 1969] and that people
who like each other will interact at a closer physical
proximity than those who do not.

Personal space, defined by Sommer [1969] as the emo-
tionally charged zone around each person which helps to
regulate the spacing of individuals, has primarily been
used as a measure influenced by power relationships. .In
this light, Henderson and Lyons [1972] found easier viola-
tion of female space in a study of pedestrians crossing a
street in at a crosswalk. The motion of the female was
more disturbed by people in general than that of the males.

In addition, Sommer [1969] observed that dominant

animals and human beings have a larger envelope of

inviolability surrounding them than do subordinate ones.
That is, dominants may not be approached as closely.

Willis [1969] found differences in personal space
violation in terms of the initial speaking distance set by
an approaching person. His study indicated that women were
approached more closely than were men, by both men and women.
This finding, that women approach other women more closely,
indicates that the power structure in the relationship may
not be the only relevant one, but that the perceived status
of the person may influence such social norms as initial

speaking distance.

Tone of Voice

 

Obviously we all react to another's tone of voice as
a cue to interpret what is said. For example, a mother may
tell her child to go to bed and indicate anger by yelling
the command or may make it more of a suggestion with a
quieter, less vehement tone of voice.-

Mehrabian [1968] concluded that a speaker's tone of
voice is more important than the content of his message in
determining whether the listener feels liked or disliked.

Weitz [1972] suggested that tone of voice may be a
better indicator of liking or disliking of another person
than self-report on a questionnaire. In this experiment
each of the white male subjects was given a written descrip-
tion of a black man who was to be his partner in the experi-

ment and who was waiting in an adjoining room. The subject

then expressed his reaction to the unseen partner on the
basis of written information. He filled out a paper-and—
pencil measure of liking for the partner and read task
instructions to the partner over an intercom system. Tape
recordings of these statements were later scored by a
panel of raters for their warmth of tone. Additionally,
the subject was asked to indicate how many hours he would
be willing to return to the lab during the following week
to take part in further experiments with the same partner.
After collecting the data, Weitz computed correlations
between the measures. She found that.though warmth of tone
and commitment to future interaction correlated positively
with one another, each of the measures correlated negatively
with the questionnaire measure of liking. Those subjects
who expressed the most positive attitudes toward their
black partner on the questionnaire had the least friendly
tone and were least willing to interact with him further.
weitz suggests that this inconsistencymay stem from a
tendency of whites within a liberal college environment

to repress their negative or conflicting feelings toward
blacks by overreacting in a positive direction on the
questionnaire. This may also indicate that actual obser-
vations of nonverbal communication are more accurate in
predicting behavior than are other measures, such as
self—reports.

However, one could reasonably question the validity

of much of the research in the field and postulate other
reasons for the findings. Often there is a lack of clarity
about what the conceptual variables mean, such as what,
exactly, constitutes interpersonal attraction? Also, due to
the unobtrusive nature of nonverbal communication one could
question whether the "true" meaning or intent of that
communication were being established or whether nonverbal
behavior is, in fact, intended behavior. Also one must
consider those cases, such as Weitz [1972] in which the
nonverbal behavior was incongruent with the other responses
to the object. How can one deal with and interpret these
incongruities between different forms of behavior?

Thus, for these reasons, the relationship between
nonverbal communication and other factors such as inter-
personal attraction, curiosity, aggressiveness and dominance
has not been entirely systematically nor validly researched.

In line with previous research which has attempted
to establish clearer relationships between various non-
verbal cues and relationships between people, I will attempt
to show a relationship between the nonverbal cue of touch-
ing and a particular relationship between people, namely
that of dominance.

First, one must recognize the context from which
feelings regarding touch originate. Touching behavior is
a commonly shared nonverbal "language" in which certain
behaviors acquire specific meanings within a group

[Faltico, 1969]. There are norms guiding this behavior

10

which vary across class, ethnic groups, sexes and situa-
tions. Examples of these norms are evidenced in the
ability of a master to touch a slave while that touch
may not be reciprocated without a blatant violation of an
unspoken rule. Further, the president of a company is
freer to touch the elevator operator or his secretary than
vice versa. Additionally, a doctor may more often touch
his patients, nurses, or technicians. There is some obser-
vational evidence to substantiate this. Goffman [1956]
found that doctors touched other ranks but other ranks
tended to feel it would be presumptuous for them to reci-
procate a doctor's touch, let alone initiate such a contact
with a doctor. In an explanation of this touching norm,
Goffman [1956] states that the higher the class, the
more extensive and elaborate are the taboos against initi-
ation of contact by subordinates, and that between super-
ordinate and subordinate one may expect to find asymmetrical
relations, the superordinate having the right to exercise
certain familiarities which the subordinate is not allowed
to reciprocate. Violation of these norms may result in
diverse reactions, ranging from mere surprise to severe
reprimand or ostracism.

In order to study this normative behavior, Henley
[1973a, 1973b, 19730] conducted noncontrived observational
studies which indicated that males touch females more than

females touch males. This sex difference in touching has

11

further been substantiated by Jourard [1966] and Jourard
and Rubin [1968] employing pictures of the body and asking
subjects to indicate specific body areas and how often
they were touched by particular others. The results
indicated that women showed greater accessibility to physi-
cal contact than men, and that the hand, arms, shoulders
and the top of the head received the most contact while
areas most obviously linked with sexuality were touched
less.

Henley [1973a, 1973b, 1973c] contends that a power
or status difference offers a more complete explanation
as to why males touch females more often. One may begin
to substantiate this by delineating three areas of power
differences. First, there are external indicators of
power such as income and education figures. Stevenson
[1975] and Astin [1969] have shown that women are under-
represented in fields, such as scientific and professional,
which pay more and that women who work fulltime have lower
average wages than men at every educational level. In
addition, James [1975], Astin [1969] and Knudsen [1969]
have substantiated that the educational attainment of
females remains considerably lower than that of males and
men are becoming better educated than women especially
beyond the baccalaureate. Second, there are observational
indices such as interpersonal gestures of deference like

females averting their eyes more often than men or smiling

12

more. As Goffman [1956] stated, in face-to-face behavior
one may expect to find asymmetrical relations between
superordinate and subordinate, with the superordinate
having the right to exercise certain familiarities.

Various studies [Moore, 1966; Broverman, Vogel,
Broverman, Clarkson and Rosencrantz, 1971; Johnson, 1972]
have substantiated that observers conclude that males
occupy a higher position on a dominance or power hierarchy.
By dominance we mean more assertive, active and independent
behavior rather than more dependent, passive and nonasser-
tive behavior.

Using binocular rivalry situations in which a "violent"
picture was tachistoscopically presented to one eye simul-
taneously with a "nonviolent" picture shown to the other,
bkmme[l966] concluded that, in Western culture, males
learn to be more active and socially assertive than females
since he considers this binocular rivalry situation to be
a direct measure of aggressiveness. Additionally, Broverman
et al. [1972] developed a sex role questionnaire based on
their previous studies and found that included in the male-
valued items were the attributes of independent, active,
and assertive while women are perceived to be dependent,
passive, and nonassertive. Further, a similar questionnaire
was given to mental health professionals and they tended
to view mature healthy women as more submissive and less

independent than either mature healthy men, or adults,

13

sex unspecified. Also, Johnson [1972] found that both
males and females tended to regard the direct exercise
of power as masculine and used by males.

In addition to the research on perceived male dom-
inance, Stephens [1963] stated that the power is actually,
as well as formally, in the hands of the husband. In a
sample of 96 cultures, only four or five constitute pos-
sible matriarchies (societies in which women customarily
rule within the home) and these are the Berbers, Tchambuli,
Modjokuto, Jivaro, and perhaps Nama. However, none of
these could be considered full-fledged matriarchies since
the female is not dominant in the public realm.

Zellman [1974], Duverger [1955] and Tiger [1969]
documented the particular societal structure in which
male dominance is obvious, namely the political and econ-
omic structures. Male dominance in recreational areas
(particularly more aggressive sports) and the religious
(including European Christian churches) structures of
Western culture haS' been discussed by Tiger [1969].

Most importantly for this study, Frieze [1974]
asserts that nonverbal expressions serve to establish and
maintain more dominant positions in these societal struc-
tures for men who display them. Thus, one could interpret
this sex differential in touching as being related to
dominance as Henley [1973a, 1973b, 1973c] has done. She

maintained that more powerful individuals can touch others

14

more and specifically, that is why men touch women more.

Frieze [1974] reasoned that since men do more
touching of women than vice versa, and this touching is
unrelated to the intimacy of the relationship but in
accord with the relations of power, female personal
space is consistently violated. (By touching someone who
does not reciprocate, one violates the personal space of
that individual [Frieze, 1974].) Further, according to
Henley [1973b], women are expected to accept as normal
behavior the daily violations of their persons. However,
according to Henley [1973b], when they reciprocate or
initiate touching with males, they are likely to be inter-
preted as conveying specific sexual intent.

Additional research has indicated a complex relation-
ship between nonverbal cues and dominance. In a study of
sex role attitudes and nonverbal communication, Weitz
[1974] videotaped unstructured interactions and dyadic
tasks between same and mixed-sex pairs. Following the
tasks, subjects completed a sex role attitude measure
developed by Weitz as well as scales of dominance and affil-
iation. The videotapes were rated by blind raters for
conveyed interpersonal warmth and dominance. Weitz [1974]
found that nonverbal behaviors of women in mixed-sex inter-
actions were significantly related to the male partner's
score of dominance. Women were nonverbally more submissive

with more dominant male partners and nonverbally more

15

dominant with more submissive male partners. Male nonverbal
behaviors were not significantly related to female scale
scores and Weitz [1974] offers no explanation for this. As
a partial explanation of the significant findings, Weitz
[1974] suggests that females are more likely to monitor
their partner's affective cues and adjust their own non-
verbal communications in accordance with them more so than
males do. Some support for this conclusion comes from
Rosenthal [1974] and Argyle [1967] who found that women are—
more accurate judges of affect, including nonverbal cues.
Additionally, Montagu [1971] has found that females of all
ages appear to be much more responsive to tactile stimuli
than males.

Much groundwork research on establishing what non-
verbal behaviors are consciously or unconsciously perceived
as dominant is needed before one can address the question
of women's sensitivity to these cues. One question which
is addressed in this study is the extent to which subjects
link nonreciprocal touch to relationships of dominance.
Attribution theorists attempt to determine the processes
an observer goes through in making these links. The task
in this case is to determine how and what an individual
will conclude when given the information that one of the
peOple in a relationship touches the other more.

First one must recognize that attribution theory is

closely linked with person perception. The observer, first,

16

must perceive the situation presented, and in this research
one must ask whether the observers perceived the touching
scenario as it was intended. Given then, that observers
have perceived the stimulus situation, it will mean, accord-
ing to Heider's attribution theory, different things to
perceivers who differ. When subjects are asked to make
causal attributions about the stimulus situation, the vari-
ous attributions may mean different things since the ob-
servers may have perceived the relationship between the two
individuals in different ways. That is what attribution
theory is concerned with since Heider's [1958] theory
stresses the importance of looking at the perceiver's sub-
jective experience rather than the objective description of
the stimulus input. The perceiver not only perceives people
as having certain spatial and physical properties, but also
can grasp even such intangibles as their wishes, needs and
emotions by some form of immediate apprehension [Heider,
1958]. I

In this study, one must consider what cognitive pro-
cess the participants would go through to arrive at a suf-
ficient underlying cause for the touching behavior and then
hypotheses about the characterizations of the toucher and
the touched person can be generated. The Jones and Davis
[1965] version of attribution theory seems most applicable
to the present study. The basic premises of their theory

are that every action is presumed to carry with it certain

17

specifiable effects and each unit of intentional behavior
can be seen as one of several possible actions available

to the actor at the time. The common effects produced by
two or more potential choices can not serve as a basis for

a deciSion between those possibilities. Only the noncommon
effects can be used to infer the reasons for the choice that
was actually made. One considers the number of noncommon
effects involved and attempts to assess the assumed desir-
ability of these effects using a reference point. The more
the actor's choice deviates from what would be expected in
the observer's reference group used for comparison, the

more the choice will be attributed to a personal disposition,
which is defined as a relatively unchanging structure or
process that characterizes or underlies a phenomenon
[Heider, 1958].

The theory then considers what Jones and Davis call
the perceivers correspondence of inference-~i.e., the per-
ceiver's certainty that the actor's behavior reflects an
underlying personal disposition. Correspondence refers to
the extent that the act and the underlying characteristic
or attribute are similarly described by the personality
inference. For example, the most correSpondent inference
is that which assumes with high confidence that domineering
behavior is a direct reflection of the person's intention
to dominate, which in turn reflects a disposition to be do-

minant [Jones and Davis, 1965]. In terms of effects, this

18

is stated that high correspondence occurs when there are

few noncommon effects and when the assumed desirability of
those effects is low. For example, in this study one would
consider the noncommon effects between touching and not
touching the other individual. That is, compare what one
can gain or lose by either touching or not touching and then
assess the assumed desirability of those effects in relation
to a particular reference group.

A simplified example of this process undertaken by a
subject would be as follows: If a subject were given the
information that one individual was touching another more,
he/she would conclude that there are some effects produced
by both touching and not touching another. The effects
produced when a male touches a female more might include
getting the female to like him or asserting his dominance.
The effects produced by not touching the female might also
include getting the female to like him (by not appearing
too aggressive) and maintaining a certain distance between
the two parties. Therefore if a subject sees a male touch-
ing the female he/she compares the noncommon effects of the
touching and not touching. Since only the noncommon effects
can serve as a basis for a decision between the two courses
of action, he/she would most likely infer that the male
touched the female more because he was asserting his domin-
ance or power.

Jones and Davis [1965] then suggest how a perceiver

19

searches for the dispositional cause of an intention. The
perceiver can obtain more information about the actor (1)
when the number of effects produced by the action is small
rather than large, and (2) when those effects are of low
rather than high social desirability. In other words,
unexpected or out-of-role action is more attributionally
informative to an observer than role-prescribed behavior.
When a person behaves in a manner opposite that dictated
by the role requirements, one can be fairly certain that
his/her behavior reflects his/her underlying personality.
In this study an out-of-role behavior would occur with the
female touch initiator. Thus, this action should reflect
a personal disposition and subjects should indicate this
in their responses.

The present study is a test of the significance of
a dominance and a liking relationship in nonreciprocal
touching and its relation to the sexes. In the study sub-
jects are given two pieces of information to integrate. One
is the liking information they are given and the other is
the fact that there is an interpersonal encounter where
the person who is touching the other more is liked either
more or less than the recipient of the touch. Given this
information, a subject must then decide what the touching
indicates. This is, when will nonreciprocal touching
communicate affection and when will it communicate dominance?

If a subject is told that "Renee likes Dave more" and

20

Renee is touching Dave more, it is hypothesized that her
touch initiation will more frequently be attributed to
affection or sexual attraction and that subjects will char-
acterize her as flirtatious or affectionate on the adjective
checklist and as less dominant, less assertive and weaker
on the semantic differential scales. The reason this is
hypothesized is that since nonverbal communication has
been shown to be related to affection it seems intuitively
logical that if someone likes another more, his/her touching
would be related to his/her liking and thus, would be done
out of affection. For the same reasoning, it is hypothesized
that if "Dave likes Renee more" and Dave is the touch ini-
tiator, his touch initiation will be more frequently attri-
buted to affection or sexual attraction and he will be
characterized by subjects as flirtatious or affectionate on
the adjective checklist and as less dominant, less asser-
tive and weaker on the semantic differential scales.

When a subject is told that "Renee likes Dave more"
and Dave is touching Renee more, it is hypothesized that
his touch initiation will be more frequently attributed to
dominance and subjects will characterize him as more domin-
ant, assertive, active and stronger on the semantic differ—
entials and as commanding, manipulative or independent on
the adjective checklist. The reasoning behind this is found
in the theory of least interest [Waller and Hill, 1951].

This states that in any sentimental relationship the one who

21

cares less can exploit the one who cares more. Thus, in
this condition Dave likes Renee less and can therefore be
perceived as being more exploitative, thereby leading to
more characterizations to Dave of dominance and assertiveness.

Subjects told that "Dave likes Renee more" will more
frequently attribute her touch initiation to sexual attrac-
tion and will characterize her as flirtatious or sex-starved
on the adjective checklist and as less affectionate (since
Dave likes her more) and more active on the semantic dif-
ferential scales. The reasoning for this is that Henley
[1973b] stated that women touch initiators are likely to
be interpreted as conveying specific sexual intent. The
reason this was not hypothesized for the female touch ini-
tiator with the female liker was that since the female also
liked him more it was more congruous to assume that her
touch and liking were related and thus, the touch was done
out of affection. In this condition, however, the male
likes her more and therefore affection is not a logical
reason for her touch. Also Henley [1973b] states that it
is difficult to ascribe dominance to a female since it is
out-of-role for her so the sexual attraction explanation
seems most logical.

Overall, regardless of the liking relationship, sub-
jects will give more frequent dispositional attributions
(such as, is an insecure person) rather than situational

one (e.g., was trying to loosen up) to a female initiating

22

touch. This hypothesis assumes that in our culture it is
seen as more appropriate for men to touch women; thus, a
female's initiation of touch is an out-of-role action.
There seems no reason to believe males would receive either
more situational or dispositional attributions. Also, it is
hypothesized that on the question relating to the most ap-
parent dimension, the dominance-submission dimension will
be the most apparent to the subjects in the condition of
Dave as the touch initiator and Renee liking Dave more since
this is in line with the other hypotheses for that condition.
Some main effects for the asymmetrical liking relation-
ship are also hypothesized. It is predicted that the person
who likes the other more will be perceived as more affec-
tionate and less dominant while the individual who does
not like the other more will be perceived as more dominant
and less affectionate. This is in accordance with the theory
of least interest and the assumption that in our society
power comes from liking less. .
Differences between male and female subjects will
also be analyzed but no specific hypotheses are predicted
since there is no background material upon which to base

any predictions.

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects were 80 students, 40 males and 40 females,
enrolled in introductory psychology course at Michigan State
University who received extra credit for participation.

Subjects participated in groups of eight.

Procedure

 

Two college students, a male and a female, were
trained to carry on a conversation regarding movies. (They
were instructed to equalize all nonverbal cues except touch-
ing:} Two five-minute conversations were videotaped, using
standard equipment. In one tape the male initiated approxi-
mately 80 percent of the touching behavior while there was
approximately 20 percent reciprocation by the female. In
the other tape, the female was the initiator of the touch
with approximately 20 percent reciprocation by the male.
The touching was primarily confined1x>the head, shoulders,
arms and hands. It consisted chiefly of a touch to the
others arm, an arm around the other's shoulder, or taking
the other's hand.

Subjects were met in a classroom by either a male or fe-
male undergraduate experimenter. They were allowed to choose

any classroom seat relatively close to the television set.

23

24

Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the four experi-
mental conditions, male toucher and liker, female toucher
Land liker, female toucher and male liker or male toucher
and female liker. Before viewing the videotape, subjects
were told that this was an experiment in person perception
and that they were to watch a five-minute tape of a conver-
sation between a male and female and then would be given

a questionnaire regarding the encounter.

Also, before viewing one of the videotapes, subjects
were given information concerning the liking relationship
between the individuals. In one condition subjects were
told that "Renee likes Dave more" and the other, that "Dave
likes Renee more." This resulted in a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial

design.

Dependent Measures

 

After watching the videotapes subjects answered a
questionnaire (see Appendix) regarding both the verbal and
nonverbal aspects of the scenerio, though only the nonverbal
data was of primary interest. On the questionnaire subjects
were initially provided the following information: There
are various aspects of the conversation which one can focus
on, and one of these is the verbal communication. Then
questions were asked about whether it appeared to be a free
flowing conversation, each of them seemed to be able to
express, in words, just what she/he wanted to say, the

topics of the conversation seemed interesting to the

25

individuals and to the subject. Following that, subjects
were told that in addition to the verbal communication one

can also focus on the nonverbal cues given by the indivi-
duals involved. The subjects were then instructed to answer
questions relating to the impressions or opinions they had
about the two individuals in the videotape. (These questions
concerned how long the subject thought the couple had been
going together, if theirs appeared to be a close relation-
ship and then to check three adjectives from a list which

the subject felt best characterized the female in the video-
tape. The adjectives were compassionate, flirtatious,
friendly,independent, cold, sex-starved, cautious, affec—
tionate, commanding, insecure, dependable, irresponsible,
manipulative, hard-working, spoiled, deserving, well-adjusted,
trustworthy, confident, tender, yielding and uncertain?)
Subjects were also asked to rate the female on the follow-
ing semantic differential scales: strong-weak, passive-
active, assertive-nonassertive, wise-foolish, submissive-
dominant, independent-dependent, dishonest-honest, pleasant-
unpleasant, low status-high status. The same adjective
checklist and semantic differential scales were given for
the male. Subjects were then given the additional infor-
mation that it was obvious from the tape that one indivi-
dual was touching the other more. There may be a variety

of reasons for this as well as different meanings associ-

ated with the touching behavior. Subjects then answered

26

questions relating to the meanings conveyed by the nonverbal
behavior in the videotape. They were to rank order the
following reasons why the individual touched the other more:
is an insecure person, is sexually attracted, is a dominant
individual, was trying to make the other person loosen up,
is an affectionate person, needs someone at that moment.

The reason these six items were chosen was that they were
the most frequent reason for touching given in a pilot

study conducted by the author. Subjects were then asked to
indicate any of the dimensions of interpersonal relations
evidenced in the tape. The dimensions were dominance-sub-
mission, emotionality-nonemotionality, familiarity-nonfami-
liarity, warmth-coldness, trust-mistrust. Then each subject
was to indicate which one of the dimensions was the most
apparent. Then, using all of the dimensions checked, a
subject was to describe, in his/her own words, the relation-
ship between the two individuals that indicated that

dimension.

RESULTS

Semantic Differential and Adjective
Checklist Characterizations

 

 

(/The data regarding the female toucher and liker con—
tradict the hypothesis that she would be perceived as more
affectionate, less dominant, less assertive and weaker on
the semantic differential scales. In fact, the female
toucher and liker was seen as more dominant (F = 7.983,

p < .006) and none of the other scales exhibited significant
effects (see Table 1).)

On the adjective checklist, all the data were analyzed
with the Cochran Q test. For the female toucher and liker,
the results supported the hypothesis that she would be per-
ceived as more affectionate or flirtatious (X2 = 59.202,

p < .01) (See Table 2).

There were no significant interaction effects on the
semantic differential scales for the male liker and toucher.

However, for the male liker and toucher, the adjec-
tive checklist indicated a significant effect. As was
predicted, he was perceived as more flirtatious or affec-
tionate (X2 = 45.185, p < .01) (See Table 2).

For the male toucher and female liker, the hypothesis
that he would be perceived as more dominant was supported
by the data (F = 4.110, p < .044). However, he was

27

28

perceived as more assertive (F = 4.044, p < .05) when he
was the toucher but also the liker (see Table 1). There
were no other significant effects for this condition on the
semantic differential scales.

On the adjective checklist, the data supported the
hypothesis that the male toucher with a female liker would
be perceived as more commanding, manipulative and indepen-
dent (x2 = 25.39, E < .01) (see Table 2). Also, the female
in this condition was perceived as significantly more
insecure or yielding (X2 = 37.755, p < .01).

There were no significant interaction effects on the
semantic differential scales for the male liker and female
toucher.

The adjective checklist did indicate a significant
effect for the female toucher with a male liker. She was
perceived as more flirtatious or sex-starved (X2 = 59.202,
p < .01), which supported the original hypothesis (see
Table 2) . '

Attributions on the Basis of Liking
Sex of Stimulus Person

 

 

The results from the ordinal classification of the
attributions to the toucher indicated only one significant
effect. As was hypothesized the condition of male toucher
and female liker resulted in more dominance (X2 = 3.09,

p < .10) being attributed to the male toucher. The data

did not support any of the other hypotheses.

29

Dispositional/Situational Attributions

 

The findings involving the ordinal classification of
attributions to the toucher disconfirmed the attribution
literature. According to Jones and Davis [1965] more dis-
positional attributions should be given to a person per-
forming an out-of-role behavior. In this study it was hy-
pothesized that since a female toucher would be performing
an out-of—role behavior she would be ascribed more disposi-
tional attributions for that behavior. However, the data

indicated no significant differences.

Dominance Dimension

 

It was hypothesized that the dominance dimension would
be the most apparent with a male toucher and female liker.
/Rowever, the data indicated that the dominance dimension
was most apparent when the male was the touch initiator,
regardless of the liker} Thus this lends some support to
Henley's [1973a, 1973b, 1973c] conjecture that males touch b

females more because of a power dimension.

Main Effects for Asymmetrical Liking_

 

The data on the adjective checklist and semantic dif-
ferential scales gave little support to the hypotheses that
a liker will be seen as more affectionate and less dominant
and the one who likes the other less will be perceived as
less affectionate and more dominant. A female liker was

cited as more insecure (X2 = 27.21, p < .01) while she was

30

perceived as more active (F

friendlier (X2 = 24.337, p < .01) when the male was the

5.281, p < .023) but also

liker. The male liker was seen as more commanding (X2 =
19.567, p_< .01), assertive (F = 5.504, p < .02) and inde-
pendent (F = 11.979, p < .001) while he was perceived as
more confident (X2 = 20.014,_p < .01), stronger (F = 4.416,
p < .04) and more dominant (F = 8.055, p < .006) if the
female were the liker (see Table 3). The results are too
ambiguous to draw any definitive support for the original
hypotheses or to lend any support to the theory of least

interest [Waller and Hill, 1951].

Interaction Effects For Toucher and
Liker on Semantic Differential Scales

31

TABLE 1

 

 

df

 

Female Toucher and
Female Liker

Dominance
*p'< .006
Male Toucher and
Female Liker
Dominance
*p < .044
Male Toucher and
Male Liker
Assertive

*2 < .045

1

15.312

5.000

7.200

7.983*

4.110*

4.044*

 

32

TABLE 2

Chi Square Values for Significant Toucher/Liker
Interaction Effects on Adjective Checklist

Female Toucher and
Female Liker

Flirtatious or
Affectionate

Liker

Male Toucher and

Male Liker
Flirtatious or
Affectionate
Liker
Male Toucher and
Female Liker
Commanding,
Manipulative or
Independent
Liker

Female Toucher and
Male Liker

Flirtatious or
Sex-Starved

Liker

Toucher

Male Female

 

 

 

 

 

 

Male 2 19
Female 1 25
2

x = 59.202, 2 < .01

Toucher

Male Female

 

Male 18 l

 

Female 15 l

 

 

 

 

x2 = 45.185, 2 < .01

Toucher

Male Female

 

 

 

 

 

 

Male 8 1
Female 14 6
2

x = 25.39, E < .01

Toucher

Male Female

 

Male 2 19

 

 

 

Female 1 25

 

 

x2 = 59.202, 2 < .01

Main Effects for Asymmetrical Liking on

33

TABLE 3

Semantic Differential Scales

 

 

df

MS

 

Characterization of
Female if she is
the Liker

Active
*p.< .023
Characterization of

Male if he is
the Liker

Assertive
Independent
*2 < .020
**p < .001

Characterization of
Male if the Female
is the Liker

Stronger
Dominant

*p < .037
**p < .006

8.450

9.800
21.012

7.200
9.800

5.281*

5.504*
11.979**

4.416*
8.055**

 

DISCUSSION

The results contradicted Jones and Davis' [1965] theory
that more dispositional attributions would be given to the
female toucher. The data showed no significant differences
in terms of situational/dispositional attributions. Since
this was a very short, as well as contrived, conversation,
perhaps subjects did not feel justified in giving too many
dispositional attributions since they were quite unfamiliar
with the individuals and saw only a small portion of their
behavior. Perhaps they did not want to make too hasty a
causal judgment of another individual's personality.

Another possible explanation as to why the female's
out-of-role behavior did not lead to more dispositional
attributions is that many subjects perceived the female
toucher as affectionate and sex-starved on the other scales,
and thus, her touching was then not perceived as out-of-
role because they created this new role for her.

The results also did not support the hypothesis that
the dominance dimension would be the most apparent with a
male toucher and female liker. The findings indicated that
dominance was most apparent with a male toucher regardless
of the sex of the liker. fiThus, this is supportive of Henley's
[1973a, 1973b, 1973c] idea that males touch females more than
females touch males because of a power differential)

34

35

The results of the adjective checklist and semantic
differential scales lend both support and contradiction to
the original hypotheses.

The female toucher was not perceived as more affec-
tionate, less dominant, less assertive and weaker on the
semantic differentials but was perceived as more affectionate
and flirtatious on the adjective checklist. Perhaps this
may be a function of the particular scales employed. On an
adjective checklist one is confronted with a forced-choice
situation and perhaps, affectionate and flirtatious were two
of the least offensive choices but perhaps did not fully
and specifically classify the individuals. The semantic
differential scale allows for more discrimination on each
item, rather than a yes/no response and perhaps subjects
reSponded with more middle-of-the-road classifications here
rather than making blatant character attributions.

The data on the male toucher and liker showed similar
results. There were no significant effects on the semantic
differentials but he, too, was perceived as flirtatious and
affectionate, perhaps due to the same reasons mentioned for
the female toucher and liker.

The results for the female toucher with a male liker,
again, showed no significance on the semantic differential
scales while the adjective checklist indicated she was per-
ceived as flirtatious or sex-starved, lending support to

Henley's [1973b] research on female touch characterizations.

36

Again, the same argument can be used to explain the lack
of significance on the semantic differential scales.

The experimental condition which most supports the
original hypothese was that of the male toucher and female
liker. He was perceived as dominant on the semantic differ-
ential scales, but was characterized as more assertive when
he was also the liker. Also, he was characterized as more
commanding, manipulative and independent on the adjective
checklist while the female was characterized as more insecure
and yielding. Weitz [1974] found that females are more sub-
missive with more dominant male partners and perhaps they not
only act that way but are perceived by others as more sub-
missive with a more dominant male partner even though the
actions were standardized for all conditions in the experi-
ment. It seems, then, that the touch initiation of a male
.is perceived as a dominant gesture when given the female liker.
This may mean that the male is perceived to be dominant and
commanding in this condition since he has already gained a
female's affeCtions, whereas if he is the toucher and liker
he will not be perceived as more dominant since he has more
to lose if he acts in that manner. In the former condition
he may be perceived as having more command of the situation
and thus may have more freedom of action.

Looking at the results, one can conclude that a rela-
tionship between dominance, liking and touching does exist,

but the explanations and interpretations are tenuous, at

37

best, since the results are rather inconsistent and at
times, contradictory. That an individual can be perceived
as both dominant and affectionate or as dominant, but not
less affectionate may be due to one's upbringing. In child-
hood one typically looks to the parents as a model for his/
her own subsequent behavior.

According to Bandura [1971] and Mischel [1968] vicari-
ous reinforcement may occur. The child may watch the types
of consequences produced by different actions in various
settings and the observer can then learn the response con-
sidered appropriate in given situations. In childhood a
child often receives affection, through touch, from a parent
and sees the parents touch others. This affectionate touch
generally produces good consequences. After a certain age,
this touching of the child may decrease and then the child
must look to his model to determine the appropriate behavior.
However, when a child does look to the parent to learn touch-
ing he/she sees someone who may be an affectionate person
but one who also has more status or power and is more dom-
inant. (Thus, this association between affection and dominance
learned from the parents may remain with an individual and
appear again when he/she is asked to explain another's
touching.) Thus, this ambivalence and ambiguity may be due
to the situation in which touching was generally originally
learned.

Another explanation of the dual description of touching

A /
C/

38

may be due to the fact that both subjects and confederates
were male and female college students. In that setting,
touching between a male and female typically indicates a
dating or sexual relationship or one of some degree of
affection. However, the dominance characteristic may also
be perceived because of the nonreciprocation and this may
indicate that one individual has more command of the
situation.

This study seems to confirm the ambivalence in the
existing nonverbal communication literature, i.e., that these
cues may be interpreted in a variety of ways. Further re-
.search is necessary in order to establish the link between
dominance, liking, and touching. Also, other scales should
be used since the replies in this study appeared to be
partly a function of the dependent measure. The attribution
theory connection in the present study does appear to be a
valuable tool for measuring responses but the research on it,
as well as the techniques for employing it, needs extensive
work.

In conclusion, the present study appeared to be a
step forward in terms of adding the liking dimension and
attribution theory to the existing paradigms of studying
touching. However, the results are not consistent enough
to make any definitive statements about the relationships
between dominance, liking and touching. More research is

needed in order to more fully clarify and eXplain how

39

observers interpret touching behavior, and perhaps this study
will contribute some ideas as to how future research should

be conducted.

APPENDIX

 

.Il.l'!ulull€wlfll, .

‘3' M. \-

.. hr. 55’1H._
II” \-1 .. ”hiiaili an.

Please circle one to indicate your own sex: Male , Female

There are various aspects of the conversation which one can focus
on, and one of these is the verbal communication. Please answer the
following questions concerning what you heard on the tape.

1. Did it appear to be a "free flowing," easy conversation?

2. Did each of them seem to be able to express, in words, just what
he/she wanted to say?

3. Did the topics of conversation seem interesting to you?

4. Did the individuals generally seem interested in the topic(s) of
conversation?

In addition to the verbal communication, one can also focus on the
nonverbal cues given by the individuals. From these cues one can ex-
tract judgments about the individuals involved. Please answer the
following questions relating to the impressions or opinions you have
about the two individuals in the videotape.

1. How long do you think the COUple has been going together?
2. Does theirs appear to be a close relationship?

3. Please check three (3) of the following adjectives which you feel
best characterize the female in the videotape.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

compassionate irresponsible
flirtatious manipulative
friendly hard working
independent spoiled

cold well-adjusted
sex-starved trustworthy
cautious confident
affectionate tender
commanding yielding
insecure uncertain
dependable

 

4. Please rate the female on the following scales:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strong Weak
:Passive : = = ' = - .Active -
:Assertive: : : 3 : .Nonassertive
:Wise = = = = : :Foolishf
:Submissiv; : = = - .Dominant.
:Nonaffectionate : 3 '. . .Affectionate

40

41

 

 

 

Independent Dependent
Dishonest Honest
Pleasant Unpleasant

High Status

Low Status

42

5. Please check three (3) of the following adjectives which you feel
best characterize the male in the videotape.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

compassionate ’ irresponsible
flirtatious. manipulative
friendly hard working
independent spoiled

cold deserving
sex-starved well-adjusted
cautious trustworthy
affectionate confident
commanding tender
insecure yielding
dependable uncertain

 

6. Please rate the male on the following scales.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strong ' Weak
:Passive : : = = : .Active .
:Assertive: : = = : :Nonassertive
:Wise 3 : = : 3 :Foolish:
.Submdssiv; : : = : .Dominant
:Nonaffectionate = = f = :Affezzibnate
:Independent T = . . .Dependent
=Dishonest: - : . . .Honest .
:Pleasant = = = = I. : .Unpleasant

Low Status High Status

 

43

It is obvious, from the tape, that one individual was touching the
other more. There may be a variety of reasons for this as well as dif-
ferent meanings associated with the touching behavior. Please answer the
following questions relating to the meanings conveyed by the nonverbal
behavior shown in the videotape.

1. Please rank order (from 1 to 6) the following reasons why the indi-
vidual touched the other more. One (1) means that is the most likely
reason and 6 indicates the least likely reason for that behavior.

 

is an insecure person

is sexually attracted

is a dominant individual

was trying to make the other person loosen up
is an affectionate person

needs someone at that moment

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. This encounter may have shown several dimensions of interpersonal
relations. Please put a check mark by any dimension you felt was
evidenced in the tape.

Dominance-Submission
Emotionality-Nonemotionality
Familiarity-Nonfamiliarity
Warmth-Coldness
Trust-Mistrust

 

 

 

 

 

3. Out of all the dimensions you checked above, which one was the most
apparent?

 

4. Using all the dimensions you checked, please describe the relationship
between the two individuals that indicated that dimension. For example,
if you thought that eye contact was related to liking-disliking and
you were given a scene showing eye contact,-you might respond by
saying "Betty likes Jack" or "Betty is disliked by Jack," and similarly
for any other dimensions which may have been tapped by this encounter.

Thank you for your participation.

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Argyle, M. The psychology of interpersonal behavior.
Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1967.

 

Astin, H. S. The woman doctorate in America. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation, 1969.

 

Bandura, A. Social learning theory. Morristown, N.J.:
General Learning Press, 1971.

 

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. Interpersonal attraction.
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969.

 

Broverman, I., Vogel, S., Broverman, D., Clarkson, F., &
Rosencrants, P. Sex role stereotypes: A current
appraisal, Journal of Social Issues, 1972, 28, 59-78.

 

Byrne, D. The influence of propinquity and opportunities
for interaction on classroom relationships. Human
Relations, 1961, 14, 63-69.

 

Byrne, D., Ervin, C. R., & Lamberth, J. Continuity between
the experimental study of attraction and "real-life"
computer dating. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1970, 16, 157-165.

 

 

Cook, M. Experiments on orientation and proxemics. Human
Relations, 1970, 33, 61-76. '

 

Duverger, M. Thegpolitical role of women. Paris: UNESCO,
1955.

 

Ellsworth, P. C., & Carlsmith, J. M. Effects on eye contact
and verbal content on affective response to a dyadic
interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 1968, 19, 15-20.

Ellsworth, P., Carlsmith, J., & Henson, A. The stare as a
stimulus to flight in human subjects: A series of field
experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psy:
chology, 1972, 21, 302-311.

Exline, R. V., & Winters, L. C. Affective relations and
mutual glances in dyads. In S. Tomkins & C. Izard
(Eds.), Affect, cognition and personality. New York:
Springer, 1965.

44

45

Flatico, G. J. The vocabulary of nonverbal communication in
the_psychological interview. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles,
1969.

Frieze, I. H. Nonverbal aspects of femininity and masculinity
whichyperpetuate sex-role stereotypes. Paper presented
at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association,
Philadelphia, April 1974.

 

Goffman, E. The nature of deference and demeanor. American
Anthropologist, 1956, 52, 473-502.

 

Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New
York: Wiley, 1958.

 

Henderson, L. F., & Lyons, D. J. Sexual differences in human
crowd motion. Nature, 1972, 240, 353-355.

Henley, N. M. The politics of touch. In P. Brown (Ed.),
Radical psychology. New York: Harper and Row, 1973a.

 

Henley, N. M. Power, sex and nonverbal communication.
Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 1973b, 22, 1&26.

 

Henley, N. M. Status and sex: Some touching considerations.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1973c, 2, 91-93.

 

Hess, E. H. Attitude and pupil size. Scientific American,
1965, 212, 46.

 

Hess, E. W., & Polt, J. M. Pupil size as related to interest
value of visual stimuli. Science, 1960, 132, 349-350.

Hutt, C., & Ounsted, C. The biological significance of gaze
aversion with particular reference to the syndrome of
infantile autism. Behavioral Science, 1966, 22,
346-356.

 

Johnson, P. B. Sex roles and social power. Unpublished
manuscript, U.C.L.A., 1972.

 

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. From acts to dispositions:
The attribution process in person perception. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, 1965,
pp. 219-266.

 

 

Jourard, S. M. An exploratory study of body-accessiblity.
British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
1966, 2, 221-231.

 

46

Jourard, S. M., & Rubin, J. E. Self-disclosure and touching:
Study of two modes of interpersonal encounter and
their inter-relation. Journal of Humanistic Psycho-
logy, 1968, 2, 39-48.

 

Kiesler, C. A., & Goldberg, G. N. Multi-dimensional approach
to the experimental study of interpersonal attraction:
Effect of a blunder on the attractiveness of a competent
other. Psychological Reports, 1968, 22, 693-705.

 

Knudsen, D. The declining status of women: Popular myths
.and the failure of functionalist thought. Social
Forces, 1969, 22, 183-193.

Little, K. B. Personal space. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 1965, 2, 237-247.

 

Mehrabian, A. Communication without words. Psychology Today,
1968, 2, 53-55.

Mischel, W. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley,
1968.

 

Montagu, A. Touching. New York: Columbia University Press,
1971.

Moore, M. Aggression themes in a binocular rivalry situation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 2,
685-688.

 

Rosenthal, R., Archer, D., DiMatteo, M. R., Koivumaki, J. H.,
& Rogers, P. L. Body talk and tone of voice: The
language without words. Psychology Today, 1974, 2,
64-68. _

 

Rubin, Z. Liking and loving. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1973.

 

Shadegg, S. C. How to win an election. New York: Toplinger,
1964. '

Sommer, R. Personal space. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall, 1969.

 

Stass, J., & Willis, F. N. Eye contact, pupil dilation,
and personal preference. Psychonomic Science, 1967,
1, 375-376.

Stephens, W. N. The family in cross-cultural perspective.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

47

Stevenson, M. H. Relative wages and sex segregation by
occupation. In C. B. Lloyd (Ed.), Sex, discrimina-
tion, and the division of labor. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1975.

 

 

Tiger, L. Men in groups. New York: Vintage, 1969.

 

 

Waller, W. & Hill, R. The family. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1951. ‘

Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest,
L. Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the
social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.

 

Weitz, S. Attitude, voice, and behavior: A repressed affect
model of interracial interaction. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology. 1972, 4, 14-21.

 

Weitz, S. Sex role attitudes and nonverbal communication in
same and opposite-sex interactions. Paper presented
at the meeting of the American Psychological Association,
1974.

Willis, F. N. Initial speaking distance as a function of
the speakers' relationship. Psychonomic Science,
1966, 2, 221-222.

Zellman, G. L. Barriers to the attainment of political
power by women. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia, April
1974.

 

MICHIGAN STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

31293102136045