Power and dominance-submission are two key dimensions of relationships, especially close relationships in which parties rely on one another to achieve their goals[1] and as such it is important to be able to identify indicators of dominance.[2]
Power is the ability to influence behavior[3] and may not be fully assessable until it is challenged with equal force.[4] Unlike power, which can be latent, dominance is a manifest condition characterized by individual,[5] situational and relationship patterns in which attempts to control another party or parties may or may not be accepted.[6] Moskowitz, Suh, and Desaulniers (1994) describe two similar ways that people can relate to society as parties to interpersonal relationships: agency and communion. Agency includes status and is on a continuum from assertiveness-dominance to passive-submissiveness; it can be measured by subtracting submissiveness from dominance. Communion includes love and falls on a continuum from warm-agreeable to cold-hostile-quarrelsome. Those with the greatest and least power typically do not assert dominance while those with more equal relationships make more control attempts.[1]
Power and dominance are closely related concepts that greatly impact relationships. In order to understand how dominance captures relationships one must understand the influence of gender and social roles while watching for verbal and nonverbal indicators of dominance.
Individuals may dominate through strategies that is a modifier of the function of others in the group, modifying the on-going social dynamics: 1. Restrict or have preferential treatment to what amounts one can access the food, potential and actual mates, territory, resting and sleeping areas, and the locations for that group that's most protected from predators; 2. The movements of others; or 3. How the attention of others can be utilized, an idea put forth by Michael Chance and Ray Larsen.[7][8] Through the generations, allotted hierarchy legitimizing theories are spread by the power structure, which suggest what beliefs and attitudes are permissible. Those theories determine who deserves its status and for what reasons, which, in turn, results in the dominant groups imposing the status quo on the subordinate groups. Actions, attitudes and beliefs are what give a dominant group its position, rather than mere tradition.[9]
Verbal indicators
Verbal indicators influence perceptions of dominance. To date, dominance has been linked to vocal control (Lamb, 1981, as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005), loudness as measured by amplitude (Burgoon and Hoobler, 2002, as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005; and Dillard, 2000), pitch as measured by frequency (Burgoon and Hoobler, 2002, as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005; Dillard, 2000), interruptions (Karawosky et al.., as cited in Youngquist, 2009; Karakowsky, McBey, and Miller, as cited in Youngquist, 2009), disfluencies (Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005), amount of talk time (Burgoon and Hoobler, 2002, as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005), speech rate or the number of words used in an encounter, and message length (Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005; and Dillard, 2000). An important factor for humans and animals to detect in order to survive is the idea of involvement which can be indicated through change and intensity (Tusing and Dillard, 2000). Vocal characteristics such as amplitude and frequency variation indicate change while speech rate can indicate intensity (Tusing and Dillard, 2000). Those with a high speech rate talk faster and as such are usually perceived as more dominant (Aronvitch; Buller and Aune; Buller and Burgoon; Harrigan et al..; Scherer et al.., as cited in Tusing and Dillard, 2000). Interruptions, vocal control, loudness, pitch, verbosity, speech rate and message length were found to predict perceptions of dominance.
In general, interruptions and perceptions of dominance follows a curvilinear relationship (Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005; Youngquist, 2009). Also, when asked to think of typical behaviors of powerful individuals, Obama, Sydni, and Guy (2006) found that those that were thought to hold more power were also perceived to have more successful interruptions as well as fewer disfluencies.[citation needed] As promised earlier, gender differences exist within interruptions too. Youngquist (2009) chose to look at how dominance as indicated by intrusive interruptions is perceived differently depending on the gender composition of dyads. This was done by asking 378 individuals to listen to one of 4 recordings with 3 subsections, each subsection contained 2 interruptions. The recording was paused after each subsection and assessments were made about dominance. In addition, the conversations varied by gender composition, male/male, female/male, etc. with the same actor making a total of six interruptions within one recording. His findings show that overall, female interrupters in the same sex dyad are perceived as most dominant while male interrupters in a cross sex dyad are perceived as least dominant. This is in contrast to Dunbar and Burgoon's (2005) finding that men overall are perceived as the most dominant with increased interruptions. Youngquist (2009) additionally finds that females in the same sex groups, who interrupt, are perceived as more dominant than males in the same sex group. Though an interrupter in the same sex group was seen more dominant than the male in the cross sex group, it was only for the first two interruptions. Also, for the first section of the survey (with two interruptions, in the same conversation) but not the second or third sections it was found that the female interrupter, compared to a male interrupter, was seen as more dominant in a cross sex dyad.
Vocal control, loudness, and pitch also have been found to be associated with dominance. Dunbar and Burgoon (2005) had partners and third party observers rate dominance after participating or observing an interaction. Couples were initially separated and asked to write a list of items they would like to spend a hypothetical gift of money on. The couple was then reunited and then asked to jointly decide the top things their money would be spent on. Participants rated their partners' dominance after the interaction while third party observers rated their perceptions during the interaction. They found that observers rated males and females more dominant when they expressed higher vocal control (.76, .70) respectively and only male partners perceived their partner to be more dominant when she had greater vocal control (.23). In an additional experiment, Tusling (2000) used 760 participants and divided them into three groups. Group one watched and listened to a video across various influence goals, while group two was given a transcript of the messages and group three watched the video without sounds. Each group gauged dominance levels using a Likert scale from 1–5. He found that amplitude, a measure of loudness, and amplitude variation, an indicator of change dictated perceptions of dominance. It was also found that frequency, a measure of pitch, and frequency variations were reliable predictors of dominance. Verbosity, speech rate, and message length were all found to be reliable predictors of dominance. The increased amount of words used in an interaction or verbosity was linked to more dominant perceptions by observers for males (.53) and for females (.46) by observers, though only females perceived their partner as more dominant with increased verbosity (.21) (Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005). Tussling and Dillard (2009) found that slower speech rates were found to predict increased dominance perceptions. Shorter messages were also found to predict dominance.
Nonverbal indicators
Nonverbal communication indicators are most readily located on the face such as Visual Dominance Ratio[10] and indicators expressed through the hands such as adaptor and illustrator gestures[1] have been linked to dominance. An individual's body can indicate dominance as well through posture, elevation, relaxation[11] and body lean.[12] Nonverbal behavioral indicators can be seen in the face through factors like expressiveness, visual dominance ratio, gaze, and emotions, and through the body through body control, posture, lean, openness and gestures. Facial indicators such as expressiveness, visual dominance ratio, and gaze, and as well were all found to relate to dominance.
In terms of expressiveness, males, but not females, were rated as more dominant when they were facially expressive (.26, -.36) respectively.[1] In addition, Carney, Hall, and LeBeau found that more facial expressiveness was appropriate for those with more power and that these individuals were also more likely to have self-assured expressions.[13] The eyes also have something to offer in terms of dominance. Dunbar and Burgoon found that higher visual dominance ratios were correlated with higher perceived dominance for males and females (.37, .28) respectively as rated by observers.[1] Also, Carney, Hall, and LeBeau[13] found that more glaring, more mutual gaze, longer gazing, and more looking while speaking would be more appropriate coming from an individual with more power.
Emotions are readily expressed by individuals making it easier to identify expressions of dominance. Hareli and Shomrat (2009) looked at various approach, neutral, and avoidance emotions. They ran two studies in order to understand perceptions of emotions as they related to dominance. Both studies asked participants to gauge levels of dominance. In study one, 208 individuals rated pictures of men and women with different emotions expressed. In study two, 96 individuals watched a male technician fail at his job and then explain himself showing a neutral, angry or shameful expression. Emotions surveyed included approach emotions such as anger and happiness, neutral emotions and inhibitive or avoidance emotions such as shame, fear or sadness. Approach emotions are rated as the most dominant when compared to inhibitory emotions (Carney, Hall, and LeBeau, 2005; Hareli and Shomrat, 2009; Montepare and Dobish, 2003.) In contrast, Montepare and Dobish (2003) found that happiness was perceived as more dominant than anger, while Hareli and Shomrat (2009) found the opposite. Females were perceived as more dominant than males when expressing happiness and males were perceived as slightly more dominant than females when expressing anger (Hareli and Shomrat, 2009). Hareli and Shomrat (2009) also found interesting results as it relates to neutral expressions. For instance, males were seen as significantly more dominant than females when expressing neutral expressions and neutral expressions were seen about as dominant as angry expressions for men, which is more dominant than inhibitory emotions. Inhibitory or avoidance emotions were seen as the least dominant (Carney, Hall, and LeBeau. 2005; Hareli and Shomrat, 2009; Montepare and Dobish, 2003). Sadness as opposed to fear was seen as the least dominant (Hareli and Shomrat, 2009; Montepare and Dobish, 2003). Females expressing fear or sadness were seen as less dominant than males expressing the same emotion (Carney, Hall, and LeBeau. 2005; Hareli, Shomrat, 2009). Sadness and fear were also seen as more fitting for an individual with lower power (Carney, Hall, and LeBeau, 2005) Hareli and Shomrat (2009) found that shame tended to decrease perceptions of dominance more so than anger increases perceptions of dominance for males. For females anger was perceived as the most dominant emotion followed by happiness, then a neutral expression, then fear and least dominant of all sadness. In comparison, anger was perceived as the most dominant expression for males, closely followed by a neutral expression, then happiness, then fear and least dominant of all sadness.
Furthermore, body control, posture, lean, and openness all were found to relate to dominance. For instance, Dunbar and Burgoon (2005) found that the more body control a woman had the more observers perceived her as dominant (.27) and that in general the most powerful are also the most facially expressive and the least controlled in their body. Carney, Hall, and LeBeau (2005) found high power individuals were perceived to lean forward, have open body positions, orient towards the other, and have an erect body posture more so than those of less power.
In addition, gestures also relate to dominance perceptions. Carney, Hall, and LeBeau (2005) found that high power individuals were more likely to use gestures, initiate more hand shaking and engage in a higher frequency of invasive touch. Dunbar and Burgoon (2005) found that observers rated only males as more dominant with increased use of illustrator gestures. The researchers also found that males perceived their partner to be less dominant when she used more adapter gestures.
In conclusion, one can see how dominance is a complex topic. Dominance relates to both power, status, and affiliation. Dominance is seen through manifest behaviors as indicated through the nonverbal and verbal indicators outlined above. Gender differences also exist within dominance perceptions though it depends on if one's work role or ones gender role is more salient.
Russel (as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005) stated that "the fundamental concept in social science is power, in the same way that energy is the fundamental concept in physics". It is true power and dominance are essential components in all of the world from cells to plants to reptiles, and humans that all have to fight for resources. As humans it is essential to use one's knowledge to make the world a more harmonious place using tools of assessment in order to understand individual and group behavior. This can be done through contemplating gender, social roles, and looking to verbal and non verbal indicators of dominance and submission to see how we as individuals relate to the world and each other. One can use this knowledge to one's advantage, for instance, if a boss is deciding between two individuals who are of relatively equal credentials. An individual could appear more competent by displaying dominant behaviors in reason which would could indicate confidence and the ability for leadership. A knowledge of dominant and submissive indicators could be used to help others in distress feel more equal in a relationship by monitoring one's own dominance displays and possibly by strategically using submissive displays. Overall, it is essential to understand how dominance is manifested in relationships in order to understand how power and dominance influence us.
Gender differences
Gender variations exist because of differences in our expectations about what is appropriate for a particular gender (sex differences in psychology), what is appropriate depending on the composition of two or more people and whether gender or role norms are most salient. For instance, women who display dominance can be judged differently than men exhibiting the same behavior (Burgoon et al..; Carli and Winn, as cited by Youngquist, 2009). This is because women are perceived as less competitive and dominant than men and are thought to be less likely to display dominance (Burgoon et al., as cited by Youngquist, 2009); a woman who displays dominance might potentially be perceived as more dominant than a man displaying the same behavior because her behavior will be seen as unusual. Gender composition can influence dominant behaviors differently. For instance, individuals in a same-sex group can be perceived to be of equal status and are expected per norms to play fairly (Orcutt and Harvey, as cited by Youngquist, 2009). Gender differences in behavior are often found in mixed sex groups, though some have found that women can become more assertive with men in mixed group settings (Maccoby, as cited in Moskowitz, Suh, and Desaulniers, 1994).Therefore, dominance is more readily perceived when an individual displays a control act in a same sex group as opposed to a mixed sex group.
Mixed findings have occurred when one attempts to explain dominance displays by gender or role salience. Moskowitz, Suh, and Desaulniers (1994) believe this is because an individual in a lab has less role salience and more gender salience and therefore is inclined to use more gender stereotypical behaviors in the lab while an individual at work has more role salience and gender differences are thought to be reduced (Johnson, as cited in Moskowitz, Suh, and Desaulniers, 1994). Moskowitz, Suh and Desaulniers (1994) had individuals complete survey forms for 20 days over interactions with individuals at work that lasted over five minutes. Individuals completed an average of four forms a day. The forms were divided out across behavioral indicators to keep participants from selecting the same set of behaviors. The forms had equal amounts of behaviors assessing dominance, submission, agreeableness and combativeness. The researchers found that social roles determined agentic behavior at work, not gender roles. When looking at gender composition and communal behavior it was found that gender role, and not social role influenced communal behaviors. Men were indeed more quarrelsome than women in same sex groups, whereas women were more communal with one another. In addition to gender differences it is important to be able to identify and understand how verbal indicators relate to dominance.
A smile is a facial expression formed primarily by flexing the muscles at the sides of the mouth. Some smiles include a contraction of the muscles at the corner of the eyes, an action known as a Duchenne smile. Among humans, a smile expresses delight, sociability, happiness, joy, or amusement. It is distinct from a similar but usually involuntary expression of anxiety known as a grimace. Although cross-cultural studies have shown that smiling is a means of communication throughout the world, there are large differences among different cultures, religions, and societies, with some using smiles to convey confusion or embarrassment.
Body language is a type of communication in which physical behaviors, as opposed to words, are used to express or convey information. Such behavior includes facial expressions, body posture, gestures, eye movement, touch and the use of space. The term body language is usually applied in regard to people but may also be applied to animals. The study of body language is also known as kinesics. Although body language is an important part of communication, most of it happens without conscious awareness.
Contempt is an attitude towards individuals, social groups and eventually ideologies, that evokes a sense of superiority and the right to judge, amid feelings of disgust and anger. This set of emotions generally produces maladaptive behaviour. Other authors define contempt as a negative emotion rather than the constellation of mentality and feelings that produce an attitude. Paul Ekman categorises contempt as the seventh basic emotion, along with anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness and surprise. Robert C. Solomon places contempt on the same emotional continuum as resentment and anger, and he argues that the differences between the three are that resentment is anger directed towards a higher-status individual; anger is directed towards an equal-status individual; and contempt is anger directed towards a lower-status individual.
Haptic communication is a branch of nonverbal communication that refers to the ways in which people and animals communicate and interact via the sense of touch. Touch is the most sophisticated and intimate of the five senses. Touch or haptics, from the ancient Greek word haptikos is extremely important for communication; it is vital for survival.
Sex differences in psychology are differences in the mental functions and behaviors of the sexes and are due to a complex interplay of biological, developmental, and cultural factors. Differences have been found in a variety of fields such as mental health, cognitive abilities, personality, emotion, sexuality, and tendency towards aggression. Such variation may be innate, learned, or both. Modern research attempts to distinguish between these causes and to analyze any ethical concerns raised. Since behavior is a result of interactions between nature and nurture, researchers are interested in investigating how biology and environment interact to produce such differences, although this is often not possible.
Expectancy violations theory (EVT) is a theory of communication that analyzes how individuals respond to unanticipated violations of social norms and expectations. The theory was proposed by Judee K. Burgoon in the late 1970s and continued through the 1980s and 1990s as "nonverbal expectancy violations theory", based on Burgoon's research studying proxemics. Burgoon's work initially analyzed individuals' allowances and expectations of personal distance and how responses to personal distance violations were influenced by the level of liking and relationship to the violators. The theory was later changed to its current name when other researchers began to focus on violations of social behavior expectations beyond nonverbal communication.
Oculesics, a subcategory of kinesics, is the study of eye movement, behavior, gaze, and eye-related nonverbal communication. The specific definition varies depending on whether it applies to the fields of medicine or social science.
A frown is a facial expression in which the eyebrows are brought together, and the forehead is wrinkled, usually indicating displeasure, sadness or worry, or less often confusion or concentration. The appearance of a frown varies by culture. An alternative usage in North America is thought of as an expression of the mouth. In those cases when used iconically, as with an emoticon, it is entirely presented by the curve of the lips forming a down-open curve. The mouth expression is also commonly referred to in the colloquial English phrase, especially in the United States, to "turn that frown upside down" which indicates changing from sad to happy.
Surprise is a brief mental and physiological state, a startle response experienced by animals and humans as the result of an unexpected event. Surprise can have any valence; that is, it can be neutral/moderate, pleasant, unpleasant, positive, or negative. Surprise can occur in varying levels of intensity ranging from very-surprised, which may induce the fight-or-flight response, or little-surprise that elicits a less intense response to the stimuli.
Chronemics is an anthropological, philosophical, and linguistic subdiscipline that describes how time is perceived, coded, and communicated across a given culture. It is one of several subcategories to emerge from the study of nonverbal communication. According to the Encyclopedia of Special Education, "Chronemics includes time orientation, understanding and organisation, the use of and reaction to time pressures, the innate and learned awareness of time, by physically wearing or not wearing a watch, arriving, starting, and ending late or on time." A person's perception and values placed on time plays a considerable role in their communication process. The use of time can affect lifestyles, personal relationships, and work life. Across cultures, people usually have different time perceptions, and this can result in conflicts between individuals. Time perceptions include punctuality, interactions, and willingness to wait.
Interpersonal deception theory (IDT) is one of a number of theories that attempts to explain how individuals handle actual deception at the conscious or subconscious level while engaged in face-to-face communication. The theory was put forth by David Buller and Judee Burgoon in 1996 to explore this idea that deception is an engaging process between receiver and deceiver. IDT assumes that communication is not static; it is influenced by personal goals and the meaning of the interaction as it unfolds. The sender's overt communications are affected by the overt and covert communications of the receiver, and vice versa. IDT explores the interrelation between the sender's communicative meaning and the receiver's thoughts and behavior in deceptive exchanges.
Thin-slicing is a term used in psychology and philosophy to describe the ability to find patterns in events based only on "thin slices", or narrow windows, of experience. The term refers to the process of making very quick inferences about the state, characteristics or details of an individual or situation with minimal amounts of information. Research has found that brief judgments based on thin-slicing are similar to those judgments based on much more information. Judgments based on thin-slicing can be as accurate, or even more so, than judgments based on much more information.
Judee K. Burgoon is a professor of communication, family studies and human development at the University of Arizona, where she serves as director of research for the Center for the Management of Information and site director for the NSF-sponsored Center for Identification Technology Research. She is also involved with different aspects of interpersonal and nonverbal communication, deception, and new communication technologies. She is also director of human communication research for the Center for the Management of Information and site director for Center for Identification Technology Research at the university, and recently held an appointment as distinguished visiting professor with the department of communication at the University of Oklahoma, and the Center for Applied Social Research at the University of Oklahoma. Burgoon has authored or edited 13 books and monographs and has published nearly 300 articles, chapters and reviews related to nonverbal and verbal communication, deception, and computer-mediated communication. Her research has garnered over $13 million in extramural funding from the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Counterintelligence Field Activity, and the National Institutes of Mental Health. Among the communication theories with which she is most notably linked are: interpersonal adaptation theory, expectancy violations theory, and interpersonal deception theory. A recent survey identified her as the most prolific female scholar in communication in the 20th century.
Relational transgressions occur when people violate implicit or explicit relational rules. These transgressions include a wide variety of behaviors. The boundaries of relational transgressions are permeable. Betrayal for example, is often used as a synonym for a relational transgression. In some instances, betrayal can be defined as a rule violation that is traumatic to a relationship, and in other instances as destructive conflict or reference to infidelity.
Non-verbal leakage is a form of non-verbal behavior that occurs when a person verbalizes one thing, but their body language indicates another, common forms of which include facial movements and hand-to-face gestures. The term "non-verbal leakage" got its origin in literature in 1968, leading to many subsequent studies on the topic throughout the 1970s, with related studies continuing today.
A dominance signal is used in a dominance hierarchy or pecking order to indicate an animal's dominance. Dominance signals are a type of internal environment signal that demonstrate the signalers attributes [2]. Dominance signals are necessary for several species for mating, maintaining social hierarchies and defending territories Dominance signals also provide information about an animals fitness. Animals have developed conflict management strategies to reduce frequency of aggressive incidents in competitive matters. This evolution is the basis of dominance signals[3].
Affiliative conflict theory (ACT) is a social psychological approach that encompasses interpersonal communication and has a background in nonverbal communication. This theory postulates that "people have competing needs or desires for intimacy and autonomy". In any relationship, people will negotiate and try to rationalize why they are acting the way they are in order to maintain a comfortable level of intimacy.
Social Mirror Theory (SMT) states that people are not capable of self-reflection without taking into consideration a peer's interpretation of the experience. In other words, people define and resolve their internal musings through other's viewpoint. SMT's background is derived from the 1800s from concepts related to the study of public opinion and social interaction by Wilhelm Dilthey, the German philosopher and sociologist.
Nonverbal influence is the act of affecting or inspiring change in others' behaviors and attitudes by way of tone of voice or body language and other cues like facial expression. This act of getting others to embrace or resist new attitudes can be achieved with or without the use of spoken language. It is a subtopic of nonverbal communication. Many individuals instinctively associate persuasion with verbal messages. Nonverbal influence emphasizes the persuasive power and influence of nonverbal communication. Nonverbal influence includes appeals to attraction, similarity and intimacy.
Social vision is a sub-topic of social psychology that investigates the ways from which individuals extract information and perceive others using their vision alone. The field of social vision is highly interdisciplinary and located at the nexus of social psychology, communication studies, and vision science.
References
Burgoon, J. K., and Hoobler, G. (2002). Nonverbal signals. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp.240–299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carney, D. R., Hall, J. A., and LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Beliefs about the nonverbal expression of social power. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29, 105–123. doi:10.1007/s10919-005-2743-z
Dunbar, N. E., and 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
Hareli, S., and Shomrat, N. (2009). Emotional versus neutral expressions and perceptions of social dominance and submissiveness. Emotion, 9, 378–384. doi:10.1037/a0015958
Lamb, T. A. (1981). Nonverbal and paraverbal control in dyads and triads: Sex or power differences? Social Psychology Quarterly, 44(1), 49–53.
Montepare, J. M., and Dobish, H. (2003). The contribution of emotion perceptions and their overgeneralizations to trait impressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 236–254.
Moskowitz, D. S., Suh, E. J., and Desaulniers, J. (1994). Situational influences on gender differences in agency and communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4), 753–761.
Tusing, K. J., and Dillard, J. P. (2000). The sounds of dominance. Human Communication Research, 26(1), 148–172. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00754.x
Youngquist, J. (2009). The effect of interruptions and dyad gender combination on perceptions of interpersonal dominance. Communication Studies, 60, 147–163.
↑ (as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005) describes, "the fundamental concept in social science is power, in the same way that energy is the fundamental concept in physics"
↑ (Bachrach and Lawler; Berger; Burgoon et al.; Foa and Foa; French and Raven; Gray-Little and Burks; Henley; Olson and Cromwell; Rollins and Bahr, as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005)
↑ (Rogers-Millar and Millar, as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005)
↑ Chance, Larsen, Michael R. a., Ray R. (1976). The Social Structure of Attention. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN978-0471015734.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
↑ Quist, Resendez., R. M., M. G. (2002). "Social dominance threat: Examining Social Dominance Theory's explanation of prejudice as legitimizing myths". Basic & Applied Social Psychology. 24 (4): 290. doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2404_4. S2CID144306430.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
↑ Dovido and Ellyson, as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005), emotions (Kelter, as cited in Hareli and Shomrat, 2009
↑ Burgoon and Hooble, Cashdan, Schwartz et al.., as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005
↑ Burgoon, Buller, Hale and Deturck, (as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
