Dominance hierarchies: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 34: Line 34:
The VDR cancels out differences in individual propensity for holding eye contact and combines both in one number.<ref>https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4684-2835-3_2</ref><ref>https://doi.org/10.2307/3033735</ref>
The VDR cancels out differences in individual propensity for holding eye contact and combines both in one number.<ref>https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4684-2835-3_2</ref><ref>https://doi.org/10.2307/3033735</ref>


https://i.imgur.com/mOT2svN.png
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Caption: VDR ratio of various speaking and listening groups
|-
! Speakers
! Listeners
! VDR
|-
| ROTC officies
| ROTC cadets
| 1.06
|-
| ROTC cadets
| ROTC officies
| 0.61
|-
| psychology undergrads
| low-achieving high school seniors
| 0.92
|-
| psychology undergrads
| college chemistry honor students
| 0.59
|-
| expert men (speaking about their own field)
| non-expert women
| 0.98
|-
| expert man (speaking abou the listener's field)
| expert women
| 0.61
|-
| expert women
| non-expert men
| 1.04
|-
| non-expert women
| expert men
| 0.54
|}
 
=== Smiling ===
=== Smiling ===
Smaller (less dominant) football players displayed more smiling than larger (more dominant) football players (F(1.41, 38.10) = 111.80, partial η² = .81).<ref>http://doi.org/10.1177/147470491201000301</ref>
Smaller (less dominant) football players displayed more smiling than larger (more dominant) football players (F(1.41, 38.10) = 111.80, partial η² = .81).<ref>http://doi.org/10.1177/147470491201000301</ref>
17,538

edits

Navigation menu