Abstract
The determinants of conversational dominance are not well understood. We used videotaped triadic interactions among unacquainted same-sex American college students to test predictions drawn from the theoretical distinction between dominance and prestige as modes of human status competition. Specifically, we investigated the effects of physical formidability, facial attractiveness, social status, and self-reported subclinical psychopathy on quantitative (proportion of words produced), participatory (interruptions produced and sustained), and sequential (topic control) dominance. No measure of physical formidability or attractiveness was associated with any form of conversational dominance, suggesting that the characteristics of our study population or experimental frame may have moderated their role in dominance dynamics. Primary psychopathy was positively associated with quantitative dominance and (marginally) overall triad talkativeness, and negatively associated (in men) with affect word use, whereas secondary psychopathy was unrelated to conversational dominance. The two psychopathy factors had significant opposing effects on quantitative dominance in a multivariate model. These latter findings suggest that glibness in primary psychopathy may function to elicit exploitable information from others in a relationally mobile society.
Highlights
When small groups of strangers are assembled for brief discussions, individual differences emerge along what Hall, Coats, and LeBeau [1] call ‘‘the vertical dimension...relating to power, dominance, status, hierarchy, and related concepts’’
A large literature has explored the manifestations of interpersonal dominance in face-to-face interaction [1,14], little is known about the determinants of conversational dominance in non-task-centered zero-acquaintance situations
Our study is the first to report an association between conversational dominance, or any quantified measure of natural verbal behavior, and any measure of psychopathy
Summary
When small groups of strangers are assembled for brief discussions, individual differences emerge along what Hall, Coats, and LeBeau [1] call ‘‘the vertical dimension...relating to power, dominance, status, hierarchy, and related concepts’’. The generality in this formulation reflects a history of inconsistency in social scientists’ use of these terms [1,2]. It may denote a characteristic of a dyadic relationship, the identity of the individual who consistently wins one-on-one contests [3]. Personality psychologists (e.g. [5]) regard dominance as a stable individual trait, subsuming descriptors such as ‘‘assertive’’, ‘‘forceful’’, and ‘‘self-confident’’
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
