Psichologijos_zurnalas_22_korektura.indd SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS International Journal of Psychology: Biopsychosocial Approach 2018 / 22 ISSN 1941-7233 (Print), ISSN 2345-024X (Online) https://doi.org/10.7220/2345-024X.22.5 1 Address for correspondence: Kristina Žardeckaitė-Matulaitienė, Vytautas Magnus Uni- versity, Department of Psychology. Address: Jonavos g. 66-328, LT-44191 Kaunas, Lithuania. E-mail: kristina.zardeckaite-matulaitiene@vdu.lt GENDER DIFFERENCES IN DYADIC DOMINANCE DURING INTERPERSONAL INTER AC TION: THE COMPARISON OF FRIENDS’ DYADS AND ROMANTIC COUPLES Kristina Ražauskaitė-Pilipavičienė, Kristina Žardeckaitė-Matulaitienė1 Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania Abstract. Background. Dominance can be found in every dyadic relationship including ro- mantic couples, friendships or business partnership. Even though research confirms that men tend to have more power than woman not only in romantic relationships, but also in friendships. However, some scholars doubt that men’s dominance and women’s submissiveness are just an established stereotype. Thus, more information about gen- der differences in power distribution in different types of dyads (friends and romantic) during interpersonal interaction is needed. Aim.The aim of this study was to assess the differences in male and female dominance during the interpersonal interaction considering the types of dyads (same-sex friendships or heterosexual romantic part- ners). Participants. 36 dyads participated in this study, which consisted of male friends’ dyads (N = 12), female friends’ dyads (N = 12), and heterosexual romantic couples (N = 12). The participants aged between 18 and 31 years old with a mean age of 22 years old (SD = 2.23). Method. The study consisted of two stages. In the first stage, the partici- pants were asked some questions about themselves and their relationship, and were invited to participate in the experiment. All of the participants were informed about the terms of experiment (usage of video record) and were able to express their willing- ness to participate in this study in written form. The second stage of the research was a quasi-experiment. During this stage participants, i.e. friends and romantic partners’ dyads, played the game “Jenga” for about 20 minutes. Results, conclusion. It was found that women tend to dominate more than men during the interpersonal interaction in general and in romantic couples. No differences in dominance were found comparing female friends’ and male friends’ dyads. However, more dominance was found in het- erosexual romantic couples comparing to the male and female friends’ dyads. Keywords: dyad; dominance; romantic couple; same-sex friends; interpersonal interaction. 95 https://doi.org/10.7220/2345-024X.22.5 mailto:kristina.zardeckaite-matulaitiene@vdu.lt 96 Kristina Ražauskaitė-Pilipavičienė, Kristina Žardeckaitė-Matulaitienė INTRODUC TION The Importance of dominance in Interpersonal Relations It is known that dominance is an integral part of any relationship, especially in intimate ones, because of the partners’ interdependence and inevitable mutual decisions (Dunbar, 2004). Based on the equality theory, which suggests that the balance of equality in relationships is the most comfortable and even people themselves in various ways tend to convince themselves that they are in equal relationships (even if they are not), and, if they recognize inequality, then they try to use both ver- bal and non-verbal techniques to prevent power imbalances (Dunbarn & Burgoon, 2005). However, inequality in relationships is inevitable when partners in relationships are different from one another, the dominant partner arises, and who will be inclined to control relationships (Bur- goon, Hansaker, & Dawson, 1995). This individual’s tendency to domi- nate and have the power allow him or her to take a decision-making po- sition not only in intimate relationships, but also in the society, and their decisions have certain consequences to other persons (Guinote, 2007). The concept of dominance is associated with psychological factors that determine the need to dominate, i.e. to be superior to your partner. According to the literature it can be observed that the concept of domi- nance is widely used in many areas, as well as in medicine, business, and psychology (Willing, 2008). Though dominance is used in many fields, but it is inseparable from the two things: personal qualities and commu- nication with other people (Willing, 2008). As it is known, communica- tion can be divided into verbal communication, i.e. a naturally occurring language, and non-verbal communication, i.e. directly observed com- munication, which can be both gestures and facial expressions (Carter, 2010). Thus, to recognize the dominance in relationships, it is necessary to monitor both verbal and non-verbal communication. According to the scientific literature, non-verbal dominance includes such aspects as an open body posture, smiling, showing dissatisfaction, head twisting, abnormal intonation, and similar features (Helgeson, 2012, Carney, Hall, & LeBau 2005, Burgoon & Dunbarn, 2000). Meanwhile, the verbal domi- nation reveals giving orders for the partner what to do, presenting of ar- guments, and interrupting conversations (Helgeson, 2012, Lamb, 1981). 97 2018, 22, 95–111 p.Gender Differences in Dyadic Dominance During Interpersonal Interaction: the Comparison of Friends’ Dyads and Romantic Couples Most of the cultural and social factors reveal that males have higher dominance positions and possess social dominance orientation (Foels & Pappas, 2004, Pula, McPherson, & Parks, 2012). In addition, women con- firm male dominance in relationships by claiming that they see men as more able to dominate in relationships (Dunbar, Bippus, & Young, 2008). However, there is the opposite opinion too, stating that position of both women and men in dominance is the same (Caricati, 2007, Straus, 2008). Dominance in Heterosexual Romantic Relationships It is stated that dominance in romantic relationships depends on the position of the partner, regardless of his/her age (Dunbar & Burgoon, 2005). However, it was observed that most of the persons involved in research are young, mostly students of different specialties (Lennon et al., 2012, Sprencher & Felmlee, 1997, Rogers, Bidwell, & Wilson, 2005). As it was mentioned before, dominance depends on the partner’s posi- tion, in other words, if one partner dominates and takes a leading role in relationships, then the other will take obedient position and will be in- clined to accept the dominant partner’s proposals (Burgoon, Hunsaker, & Dawson 1994). In most cases this dominant position is predisposed by gender, even though women generally tend to believe that they are in equal relationships in making mutual decisions, but at the same time, men believe that they are the ones who have the most power in rela- tionships (Sprencher & Felmlee, 1997). It can be assumed that men seek to take precedence in the relationship than women and to dominate in the decision-making (Galliher et al., 1999, Ponzi, Klimczuk, Traficonte, & Maestripieri, 2014). Research show that women admire dominant partners, believing that such persons will be able to defend them, will be able to compete, and will be able to reach heights (Snyder, Kirkpatrick, & Barrett, 2008). Women also experience more satisfaction of relationships when men have a higher decision-making authority in relationships. However, women also evaluate themselves as having a certain power in relation- ships and more dominant when they are in equal power with their part- ners (Dunbar et al., 2008). There are two conditions in which women tend to assess themselves as having more influence on their partner: it is hoping (a) that they will take proposals mutual to the activities of their 98 Kristina Ražauskaitė-Pilipavičienė, Kristina Žardeckaitė-Matulaitienė couple; (b) that they will consider the number of solutions in which she can say more. However, in most cases taking mutual decisions easily and without conflict about leisure activities are in the equal couples rather than in the couples which are characterized as strongly or weakly dominant (Ponzi et al., 2014). However, the most important thing is that the dominance is important for the relationship, because couples without a clear domi- nance argue less than couples with strong or weak dominance (Ponzi et al., 2014). Dominance in Same-Sex Friendships Same-sex friendship is perceived as a close relationship between a woman and a woman, and a man with a man. It is stated that men’s and women’s friendships are different, and one of those differences is that women’s friendship is much closer than men’s (Helgeson, 2012). It is likely that women’s friendships are closer due to the need to have a warm, supportive and long-term relationships, and this is confirmed by Tani, Smorti and Peterson (2015) who state that women are more characterized in social support, intimacy, admiration and support. If the women’s friendship is characterized by closeness, then the men’s friend- ship shows competition between them (Helgeson, 2012). Analyzing men’s and women’s dominance in both friendships and romantic relationships it can be stated that they are different, since it was discovered that women’s friendship is more as a union, where much less dominance is envisaged (Dunbar & Abra, 2010), whilst, at the same time, in men friends’ interaction much greater mutual domination was found (Moskowitz, 1993). It was noticed that men who are characterized as having a higher level of dominance and power imbalances will suffer negative emotions in friendship more often (Tani et al., 2015). As a result, it can be assumed that different power in friendships will be a kind of aspect which affects the poor quality of relations (Veniegas & Peplau, 1997). Scientific studies found that despite women’s development of close relations, one of the girlfriends, however, will demonstrate the domi- nance. It was discovered that the female domination is different from that of male; rather, their perception is different, because, according to Youngquist (2009), this is because of the intervention of a woman in the 99 2018, 22, 95–111 p.Gender Differences in Dyadic Dominance During Interpersonal Interaction: the Comparison of Friends’ Dyads and Romantic Couples same sex dyad will be perceived as more dominant than men interven- tion in the same sex dyad, which suggests that women in same-sex rela- tionships tend to dominate more than men. To summarize, the research confirms that dominance in any relation- ship is related to relationship satisfaction and may influence other im- portant aspects of social interactions (e.g. number of conflicts, level of intimacy, and violence). However, there is a lack of research comparing behavioral aspects of dominance (both verbal and non-verbal) in differ- ent types of personal relationships (romantic relationships, friendships). Thus, this research is aimed at measuring observable features of domi- nance during the interpersonal interaction in different types of dyads (heterosexual romantic couples and male/female same-sex friends’ dyads), and to compare the expression of these features among differ- ent types of dyads. ME THODOLOGY Participants and Procedure Participants. A total of 36 dyads (72 persons), consisted of 12 hetero- sexual romantic partners, 12 women friends, and 12 men friends partici- pated in this study. Most of the participants were psychology students from Vytautas Magnus University (18 women and 17 men), but there were students from other universities and specialties, such as medicine, sociology, social work, history, marketing management, public health, physical activity, and programming. The duration of dyad companionship differed: the shortest dura- tion of companionship was between heterosexual romantic partners (2 months), and the longest duration of companionship was between men friends (16 years). Experimental procedure. The study was conducted in March-May 2015. It consisted of two phases. First of all, the participants answered several demographic questions and questionnaire of personal dominance, and then after one week they were invited to participate in the experiment at Vytautas Magnus University. All dyads (heterosexual romantic cou- ples, male and female same-sex friends) separately were invited to play a board game “Jenga” in the same room with the same conditions and instructions without information about the real aim of this task. This play 100 Kristina Ražauskaitė-Pilipavičienė, Kristina Žardeckaitė-Matulaitienė was recorded on the video camera. The duration of one play session was 20 minutes. This task was chosen because it allows creating the situation with both possibilities to demonstrate behavioral (positive and nega- tive, verbal and non-verbal) dominance while playing, and the features of typical communication in dyads. Previous research measuring power distribution during social interactions also uses this game (e.g. Liu, Mok, Witt, Pradhan, Chen & Reiss, 2016). After the experiment each dyad was asked about the satisfaction of their communication and was provided with the information about the real aim of the task and short debriefing. The recommendation for this research was acquired from the Psycholo- gists’ Professional Ethics Board at Vytautas Magnus University. Measures Socio-Demographic Questions and Questionnaire of Subjective Personal Dominance At the beginning of the study the participants were asked to pro- vide personal information (name, partner’s name, phone number, and e-mail). This data was requested to invite them to the second part of the study. Also, the participants answered demographic questions: age, sex, education, profession, working status, duration of friendship (in years), who was the initiator of the friendship. If they were e-friends and not romantic couples, they had to answer two additional questions: do they have romantic relations with someone outside this friendship; and, (if yes), what does their romantic partner think about this friendship? The questionnaire about subjective personal dominance based on Burgoon and Dunbar (2000), and Dunbar and Burgoon (2005) was also provided for the participants. They had to assess their behavior during the interaction in 7-point semantic differential scale. The items included such adjectives as dominant/submissive, confident/unconfident, etc. in the opposite sites on the scale. Internal reliability of the scale was suffi- cient (Cronbach’s alpha = .64). This scale was used as validity measure of behavioral features of observed dominance. Behavioural Evaluation of the Dominance Based on the previous experimental research of dyadic social inter- action, verbal and non-verbal features of dominance were identified. 101 2018, 22, 95–111 p.Gender Differences in Dyadic Dominance During Interpersonal Interaction: the Comparison of Friends’ Dyads and Romantic Couples Verbal dominance consisted of four elements: telling other what to do, presenting arguments, successful and unsuccessful intrusions into other’s speech (Helgeson, 2012, Lamb, 1981). Non-verbal dominance consisted of 9 features: talkativeness, loud speaking (Driskell, Olmstead, & Salas, 1993, Norton & Miller, 1975), positive emotions (smile, happi- ness, laughter), negative emotions (dissatisfaction, anger) (Hall, Coats, & Lebau, 2005, Carney et al., 2005, Hareli, Shomrat, & Hess, 2009, Lamb, 1981, Montepare & Dobish, 2003), disagreement, demonstration of disapproval (head shaking, expostulating voice with “um/ah”) (Helge- son, 2012, Carney et al., 2005), self-touching, touching other, an open body posture, legs wide (shoulder width apart), hands folded together (crossed), hands widely placed on the table (rest on the table), hands placed on hips, both hands placed over the head) (Carney et al., 2005, Hall et al., 2005). All these features were coded watching visual material (one record time was 15 minutes). Both individuals of each dyad were observed and their behavior was recorded counting how many times a particular feature was repeated during the session (Hall et al., 2005, Luxen, 2005). To ensure the validity of observed behavioral features of dominance video surveillance was performed by two experts (the authors of this paper). The experts performed monitoring of 11 from 36 dyads that par- ticipated in this survey (5 heterosexual romantic couples, 3 female same- sex, and 3 male same-sex friends), which represents about 31% of all the participants. The experts’ compliance was evaluated using Spearman’s correlation coefficients between all dominance features, taking r >= .7 as the lowest value for validity (Ekman & O‘Sullivan, 1991; Park & Levine, 2001). It was found that seven elements could be valued as reliable fea- tures of dominance in this study: telling the other what to do (r = .82), presenting arguments (r = .86), positive emotions (r = .97), disagreement (r = .71), demonstration of disapproval (r = .91), self-touching (r = .99), open body posture (r = .96). Additionally, general score of dominance as well as verbal and non-verbal dominance were used. In order to assess validity of behavioral features of dominance, cor- relation analysis between verbal, non-verbal and general score of domi- nance and subjective scale of personal dominance was implemented using Spearman’s correlation coefficient. The results showed weak, but significant or nearly significant correlations between these components: 102 Kristina Ražauskaitė-Pilipavičienė, Kristina Žardeckaitė-Matulaitienė correlation between verbal dominance and subjective dominance was .23 (p = .05), non-verbal dominance and subjective dominance -.21 (p = .08), general score of dominance and subjective dominance -.31 (p < .01). It could be stated that subjective evaluation of personal dominance of participants somewhat corresponds to their actual behavior during interpersonal interaction. RESULTS The Comparison of Male and Female Dominance During Interpersonal Interaction Based on previous research it was expected that both verbal and non-verbal dominance would be more typical for men than for women. In order to test this assumption, all features of dominance and scores of verbal, non-verbal, and general dominance were evaluated between male and female participants despite their relationship status using non- parametric Mann-Whitney criteria (Table 1). Table 1. The comparison of dominance features between men and women (N = 72) Feature of dominance Males mean rank n = 36 Females mean rank n = 36 U Telling other what to do 35.26 36.17 636.00 ns Presenting arguments 33.88 39.13 553.50 ns Positive emotions 33.90 39.10 554.50 ns Disagreements 37.06 35.94 628.00 ns Demonstration of disapproval 34.37 38.61 572.00 ns Self-touching 29.71 43.29 403.50** Open body posture 39.88 33.13 526.50 ns Verbal dominance 35.26 37.74 603.50 ns Non-verbal dominance 32.19 40.81 493.00 ns General score of dominance 31.57 41.43 470.50* * p < .05 ** p < .01 ns non significant 103 2018, 22, 95–111 p.Gender Differences in Dyadic Dominance During Interpersonal Interaction: the Comparison of Friends’ Dyads and Romantic Couples The results show that women tend to dominate more than men, especially in non-verbal reactions: they scored higher in self-touching compared to men. The Comparison of Male and Female Dominance in Heterosexual Romantic Couples In order to evaluate the assumption that men tend to dominate both verbally and non-verbally during interpersonal interactions in romantic couples compared to women, comparison of dominance features be- tween heterosexual romantic partners, using non-parametric Wilcoxon’s criteria for two related samples was used (see Table 2). Table 2. The comparison of dominance features between heterosexual romantic par tners (N = 12) Feature of dominance Negative mean rank a Positive mean rank b Z Telling other what to do 5.75 6.30 -.13 ns Presenting arguments 5.07 7.63 -.22 ns Positive emotions 6.00 6.00 -1.33 ns Disagreements 5.13 5.75 -.74 ns Demonstration of disapproval 5.29 4.00 -1.73 ns Self-touching 6.50 6.50 -.51 ns Open body posture 4.33 7.22 -2.04* Verbal dominance 5.83 6.20 -.18 ns Non-verbal dominance 6.33 6.67 -.08 ns General score of dominance 6.10 6.79 -.67 ns * p < .05 ** p < .01 ns non significant a male dominance mean rank is higher compared to female b female dominance mean rank is higher compared to male Unexpectedly, the results reveal that women are more likely to use an open body posture than men. No other differences in male and female dominance in the heterosexual romantic couples were found. 104 Kristina Ražauskaitė-Pilipavičienė, Kristina Žardeckaitė-Matulaitienė The Comparison of Dominance Among Different Types of Dyads In order to evaluate the assumption that expression of dominance differ in different types of dyads, several evaluations of two independent samples using Mann-Whitney criteria were done. Total scores of verbal, non-verbal, and general scores of dominance of each type of dyad (fe- male same-sex, male same-sex, and heterosexual romantic couples) were compared. First of all, the comparison of dominance between male and female same-sex friends’ dyads was tested (see Table 3). Table 3. The comparison of features of dominance between male and female same-sex friends’ dyads (N = 24) Feature of dominance Female friends’ mean rank Male friends’ mean rank U Verbal dominance 13.38 11.63 61.50 ns Non-verbal dominance 14.29 10.71 50.50 ns General score of dominance 14.38 10.63 49.50 ns * p < .05 ** p < .01 ns non significant The results show that no statistically significant differences in domi- nance between female and male same-sex dyads were found. Similar comparison of dominance was done between heterosexual romantic couples and female same-sex dyads. and between romantic couples and male same-sex friends’ dyads (see Table 4 and Table 5). Table 4. The comparison of features of dominance between dyads of heterosexual romantic par tners and female same-sex friends (N = 24) Feature of dominance Romantic couples’ mean rank Female friends’ mean rank U Verbal dominance 15.29 9.71 38.50* Non-verbal dominance 12.75 12.25 69.00 ns General score of dominance 13.67 11.33 58.00 ns * p < .05 ** p < .01 ns non significant 105 2018, 22, 95–111 p.Gender Differences in Dyadic Dominance During Interpersonal Interaction: the Comparison of Friends’ Dyads and Romantic Couples The results revealed that more verbal dominance was expressed in heterosexual romantic couples compared to female same-sex friends’ dyads. Table 5. The comparison of features of dominance between dyads of heterosexual romantic par tners and male same-sex friends (N = 24) Feature of dominance Romantic couples’ mean rank Male friends’ mean rank U Verbal dominance 16.50 8.50 24.00** Non-verbal dominance 14.83 10.17 44.00 ns General score of dominance 16.58 8.42 23.00** * p < .05 ** p < .01 ns non significant The comparison of heterosexual romantic couples and male same- sex friends’ dyads revealed that verbal and general score of dominance were more common between romantic partners than male friends’ dyads. DISCUSSION This study was aimed at evaluating the differences in dominance during interpersonal interaction between males and females in differ- ent types of relational dyads (heterosexual romantic couples, female and male same-sex friends’ dyads) As there is a lack of research on observ- able features of dominance among these three groups of dyads, experi- mental design of the study was implemented, where the participants were allowed for interpersonal interaction during the mutual board game “Jenga”, when verbal and non-verbal features of dominance were examined. Previous research on verbal and non-verbal types of domi- nance was mainly implemented in one type of dyadic relationships, for example, between romantic partners (Durbarn & Burgoon, 2005) or be- tween friends (Moskowitz, 1993). Meanwhile, this study examined both heterosexual romantic partners and same-sex friends’ dyads where all three types of dyads were compared with each other, which allowed 106 Kristina Ražauskaitė-Pilipavičienė, Kristina Žardeckaitė-Matulaitienė measuring how female and male participants will tend to dominate in- teracting in opposite sex or the same sex dyads. This study also allowed to evaluate which sex is more dominant and in which features. Even though it was expected that male participants will show more verbal and non-verbal dominance in the interpersonal interaction com- pared to females (based on Gonzaga, Keltner, & Ward, 2008, Ponzi, Klim- czuk, Traficonte, & Maestripieri, 2014; McCreary & Rhodes, 2001; Luxen, 2005), but this study showed completely opposite results. It was found that women in general tend to dominate more than men, especially non-verbally. The same results in gender differences were also found in heterosexual romantic couples. These contradictory results might be explained in several ways. First of all, most of the previous research in power imbalance of two genders was done based on subjective general evaluations about their own and their partner’s dominance (Sprecher, 1997; Ponzi et al., 2014). Usually these subjective evaluations do not cor- respond highly to objective behavioral features of the dominance dur- ing the specific tasks. On the other hand, experimental research on dy- adic dominance in the laboratory settings mostly are implemented with female and male participants who are strangers (Luxen, 2005; Gonzaga, Keltner, & Ward, 2008) or are instructed to implement some specific role (e.g. act equally during the task (Dunbar & Abra, 2010)), despite their own personal dominance. Thus, there is a lack of more solid evidence for gender differences in behavioral elements of dominance during the ob- servable task. Another potential explanation of more expressed female non-verbal dominance might be related to gender roles and gender ste- reotypes. It is known that females are more concerned in relationship maintenance and more experienced in both perception and expression of non-verbal clues, especially in the intimate relationships (Briton & Hall, 1995; Reeder, 2003). Thus, a more expressed use of open body posture and non-verbal dominance in general might contribute to the previous explanations. The comparison of dominance among the three types of dyads re- vealed unexpected results, also. Even though it was expected that the imbalance of power will be seen in same-sex friends’ dyads (Dwyer, 2000), especially, in male same-sex friends compared to female same- sex friends (Moskowitz, 1993), but the results of this study showed no differences in the dominance between female and male friends’ dyads, 107 2018, 22, 95–111 p.Gender Differences in Dyadic Dominance During Interpersonal Interaction: the Comparison of Friends’ Dyads and Romantic Couples and more features of the dominance were found in heterosexual roman- tic couples compared to both female and male friends’ dyads. These re- sults might be explained twofold. First of all, gender roles and perceived similarity between friends versus romantic partners might be important. The previous research shows that the individuals of the same sex dur- ing the interactions tend to behave similarly, usually based on their per- ceived gender roles (Reeder, 2003); the expectations towards same-sex friendships are also not so high and demanding compared to romantic relationships (Fuhrman, Flannagan, & Matamoros, 2009). Thus, no need for the dominance is needed during the interpersonal interactions in same-sex friends’ dyads. On the other hand, other factors might be im- portant in explaining the differences in dominance among these three groups of dyads. The duration of relationship, previous power distribu- tion in dyads might be important explaining the results of this study. In the end, some limitations of this study must be outlined. A small number of participants took part in this study; thus, the statistical power of the results was quite low. A higher number of dyads might help to provide more sounded conclusions. On the other hand, our study sam- ple consisted mainly of students and included limited spectrum of all possible relational dyads (e.g., we were not able to invite homosexual romantic couples or cross-sex friends’ dyads). To receive more repre- sentative data, it is necessary to have a greater number of different age participants, representing full range of possible relational dyads. Addi- tionally, taking into account other important factors, related to power distribution in dyads, would also be beneficial. Despite these limitations, this study is valuable for scholars inter- ested in gender and relational status interaction for behavioral aspects of dominance. These results might also be useful for the practitioners working with couples facing communication problems. CONCLUSIONS 1. Female are more inclined to demonstrate dyadic dominance com- pared to male during interpersonal interaction despite the type of relationship; they are also more inclined to use open posture as a feature of non-verbal dominance in heterosexual romantic couples compared to males. 108 Kristina Ražauskaitė-Pilipavičienė, Kristina Žardeckaitė-Matulaitienė 2. No differences in dyadic dominance were found between male and female same-sex friends’ dyads. 3. More verbal dyadic dominance was found in heterosexual romantic couples compared to both female and male same-sex friends’ dyads. REFERENCES Briton, N. J. & Hall, J. A. (1995). Beliefs About Female and Male Nonverbal Communication. Sex Roles, 32, 79–90. Burgoon, J. K. & Dunbar, N. E. (2000). An Interactionist Perspective on Dominance – Submission: Interpersonal Dominance as a Dynamic, Situationally Contingent Social Skill. Communication Monographs, 67, 96–121. Burgoon, M., Hunsaker, F. G., & Dawson, E. J. (1995). Human Communication. USA: Sage Publication. Caricati, L. (2007). The Relationship Between Social Dominance Orientation and Gender: the Mediating Role of Social Values. Sex Roles, 57, 159–171. Carney, D. R., Hall, J. A., & LeBau, L. S. (2005). Beliefs About Nonverbal Expression of Social Power. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29 (2), 105–123. Carter, D. C. (2010). Quantitative Psychological Research: the Complete Student’s Companion. New York: Psychology Press. Cozzolino, P. J. & Snyder, M. (2008). Good Times, Bad Times: How Personal Disadvantage Moderates the Relationship Between Social Dominance and Efforts to Win. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1420–1433. Driskell, J. E., Olmstead, B., & Salas, E. (1993). Task Cues, Dominance Cues, and Influence in Task Groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 51–60. Dunbar, N. E. (2004). Dyadic Power Theory: Constructing a Communication-Based Theory of Relational Power. The Journal of Family Communication, 4, 235–248. Dunbar, N. E. & Abra, G. (2010). Observations of Dyadic Power in Interpersonal Interaction. Communication Monographs, 77, 657–684. Dunbar, N. E., Bippus, A. M., & Young, S. L. (2008). Interpersonal Dominance in Relational Conflict: A View From Dyadic Power Theory. Interpersona, 2(1), 1–33. Dunbar, N. E. & Burgoon, J. K. (2005). Perception of Power and Interactional Dominance in Interpersonal Relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(2), 207–233. Dunbar, N. E., Jensen, M. L., Bessarabova, E., Burgoon, J. K., Bernard, D. R., Harrison K. J., et al. (2012). Empowered by Persuasive Deception: the Effects of Power and Deception on Dominance, Credibility, and Decision Making. Communication Research, 20(10), 1–25. Dwyer, D. (2000). Interpersonal Relationships. London: Routledge. Ekman, P. & O‘Sullivan, M. (1991). Who Can Catch a Lair? American Psychological Association, 46, 913–920. 109 2018, 22, 95–111 p.Gender Differences in Dyadic Dominance During Interpersonal Interaction: the Comparison of Friends’ Dyads and Romantic Couples Felmlee, D. H. (1994). Who’s on Top? Power in Romantic Relationships. Sex Roles, 31, 275–295. Foels, R. & Pappas, C. J. (2004). Learning and Unlearning the Myths We Are Taught: Gender and Social Dominance Orientation. Sex Roles, 50, 743–757. Fuhrman, R. W., Flannagan, D., & Matamoros, M. (2009). Behavior Expectations in Cross-Sex Friendships, Same-Sex Friendships, and Romantic Relationships. Personal Relationships, 16, 575–596. Galliher, R. V., Rostosky, S. S., Welsh, D. P., & Kawguchi, M. C. (1999). Power and Psychological Well-Being in Late Adolescent Romantic Relationships. Sex Roles, 40, 689–710. Gonzaga, G. C., Keltner, D., & Ward, D. (2008). Power in Mixed-Sex Stranger Interactions. Cognition and Emotion, 22(8), 1555–1568. Guinote, A. (2007). Power and the Suppression of Unwanted Thoughts: Does Control Over Others Descrease Control Over the Self? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 433–440. Hall J. A., Coats, E. J., & Lebau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal Behavior and The Vertical Dimension of Social Relations: A Meta Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 898–924. Hareli, S., Shomrat, N., & Hess, U. (2009). Emotional Versus Neutral Expressions and Perceptions of Social Dominance and Submissiveness. Emotion, 9, 378–384. Helgeson, V. S. (2012). Psychology of Gender. USA: Pearson. Kiefer, A. M. & Sanchez, D. T.; (2007). Men’s Sex-Dominance Inhibition: Do Men Automatically Refrain from Sexually Dominant Behavior? Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 1617–1631. Lamb, T. A. (1981). Nonverbal and Paraverbal Control in Dyads and Triads: Sex or Power Differences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 49–53. Lennon, C. A., Stewart, A. L., & Ledermann, T. (2012). The Role of Power in Intimate Relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(1) 95–114. Liu, N., Mok, C., Witt, E.E., Pradhan, A.H., Chen, J.E. & Reiss, A.L. (2016). NIRS- Based Hyperscanning Reveals Inter-Brain Neural Synchronization During Cooperative Jenga Game with Face-To-Face Communication. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10: 82, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00082 Luxen, M. F. (2005). Gender Differences in Dominance and Affiliation During a Demanding Interaction. The Journal of Psychology, 139(4), 331–347. Montepare, J. M. & Dobish, H. (2003). The Contribution of Emotion Perceptions and Their Overgeneralizations to Trait Impressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27(4), 237–254. Moskowitz, D. D. (1993). Dominance and Friendliness: On the Interaction of Gender and Situation. Journal of Personality, 61, 387–409. Norton, R. W. & Miller, L. D. (1975). Dyadic Perception of Communication Style. Communication Research, 2, 50–67. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00082 110 Kristina Ražauskaitė-Pilipavičienė, Kristina Žardeckaitė-Matulaitienė Park, H. S. & Levine, T. (2001). A Probability Model of Accuracy in Deception Detection Experiments. Communication Monographs, 68, 201–210. Ponzi, D., Klimczuk, C. E., Traficonte, D. M., & Maestripieri, D. (2014). Perceived Dominance in Young Heterosexual Couples in Relation to Sex, Context, and Frequency of Arguing. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 9, 43–54. Pula, K., McPherson, S., & Parks, C. D. (2012). Invariance of a Two-Factor Model of Social Dominance Orientation Across Gender. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 385–389. Reeder H.M. (2003). The Effect of Gender Role Orientation on Same- and Cross-Sex Friendship Formation. Sex Roles, 49, 3/4, 143–152. Rogers, W. S., Bidwell, J., & Wilson, L. (2005). Perception of and Satisfaction With Relationships Power, Sex, and Attachment Styles: A Couple’s Level Analysis. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 241–251. Sprecher, S. & Felmlee, D. (1997). The Balance of Power in Romantic Heterosexual Couples Over Time From “His’’ and “Her” Perspectives. Sex Roles, 37, 361–379. Snyder, J. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Barrett, H. C. (2008). The Dominance Dilemma: Do Women Really Prefer Dominant Mates? Personal Relationships, 15, 425–444. Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and Symmetry in Partner Violence by Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252–275. Tani, F., Smorti, A., & Peterson, C. (2015). Is Friendship Quality Reflected in Memory Narratives? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 1–23. Veniegas, R. C. & Peplau, L. A. (1997). Power and The Quality of Same-Sex Friendship. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 279–297. Willing, C. (2008). Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology. New York: Open University Press. Youngquist, J. (2009). The Effect of Interruptions and Dyad Gender Combination on Perceptions of Interpersonal Dominance. Communication Studies, 60, 147–163. LYČIŲ DOMINAVIMO SKIRTUMAI TARPASMENINĖS SĄVEIKOS ME TU: DR AUGŲ DIADŲ IR ROMANTINIŲ PORŲ PALYGINIMAS Kristina R ažauskaitė -Pilipavičienė,Kristina Žardeckaitė -Matulaitienė Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Lietuva Santrauka. Problema. Dominavimas gali pasireikšti bet kokiuose diadiniuose santykiuo- se, apimant romantinius santykius, draugystes ar darbinį kontekstą. Ir, nors tyrimai patvirtina, kad vyrai yra linkę labiau dominuoti nei moterys ne vien romantiniuose, bet ir draugiškuose santykiuose, dalis mokslininkų abejoja ir laiko tokį skirtumą lyčių 111 2018, 22, 95–111 p.Gender Differences in Dyadic Dominance During Interpersonal Interaction: the Comparison of Friends’ Dyads and Romantic Couples stereotipų pavyzdžiu. Taigi, reikia daugiau informacijos apie lyčių dominavimo skir- tumus skirtingose diadose (draugų ir romantinių partnerių) tarpasmeninės sąveikos metu. Tyrimo tikslas – įvertinti vyrų ir moterų dominavimo skirtumus tarpasmeni- nės sąveikos metu, atsižvelgiant į diados tipą (tos pačios lyties draugų pora ar hete- roseksualių romantinių partnerių pora). Tyrimo dalyviai. Tyrime dalyvavo 36 diados, iš kurių 12 buvo vyrų draugų poros, 12 moterų draugių poros ir 12 heteroseksualių romantinių porų. Dalyvių amžius buvo pasiskirstęs nuo 18 iki 31 metų (amžiaus vidur- kis – 22 metai, SN = 2,23). Tyrimo metodai. Tyrimą sudarė du etapai. Pirmojo etapo metu tyrimo dalyviai atsakė į kelis klausimus, susijusius su jais asmeniškai bei jų san- tykiais ir buvo pakviesti sudalyvauti eksperimente. Visi dalyviai buvo informuoti apie eksperimento sąlygas (kad jų elgesys bus filmuojamas) ir galėjo išreikšti savo sutikimą dalyvauti tyrime raštu. Antrasis tyrimo etapas – kvazi eksperimentas, kurio metu visos diados žaidė stalo žaidimą „Jenga“ maždaug 20 minučių. Rezultatai, išvada. Gauta, kad moterys yra labiau linkusios dominuoti nei vyrai tarpasmeninės sąveikos metu tiek bendrai (neatsižvelgiant į diados tipą), tiek ir romantinėse porose. Dominavimo skirtumų nebuvo rasta lyginant draugių moterų ir draugų vyrų poras. Tačiau daugiau dominavimo požymių buvo rasta heteroseksualiose romantinėse porose lyginant tiek su vyrų draugų, tiek ir su moterų draugių poromis. Reikšminiai žodžiai: diados, dominavimas, romantinės poros, tos pačios lyties asmenų draugystės, tarpasmeninė sąveika. Received: 2018-08-06 Accepted: 2018-12-30 CONTENTS EDITORIAL NOTE SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS Viktorija Cepukiene, Rytis Pakrosnis INTRODUCING UNGUIDED COMPUTERIZED SOLUTION-FOCUSED SELF-HELP INTO UNIVERSITY COUNSELING SERVICES Virginija Klimukienė, Alfredas Laurinavičius, Ilona Laurinaitytė, Laura Ustinavičiūtė, and Mykolas Baltrūnas EXAMINATION OF CONVERGENT VALIDITY OF START: AV RATINGS AMONG MALE JUVENILES ON PROBATION Karina Kravčenko, Laura Šeibokaitė THE EFFECT OF JOY AND ANXIETY ON EGOCENTRIC DECISIONS AMONG YOUNG ADULTS Ala Petrulytė, Virginija Guogienė ADOLESCENTS’ SOCIAL EMOTIONAL HEALTH AND EMPATHY IN LITHUANIAN SAMPLE Kristina Ražauskaitė-Pilipavičienė, Kristina Žardeckaitė-Matulaitienė GENDER DIFFERENCES IN DYADIC DOMINANCE DURING INTERPERSONAL INTERACTION: THE COMPARISON OF FRIENDS’ DYADS AND ROMANTICC OUPLES Lina Cirtautienė, Auksė Endriulaitienė THE INFLUENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS FOR LEADER’S EFFICIENCY IN GLOBAL IT COMPANIES Kristina Kovalčikienė, Giedrė Genevičiūtė-Janonė THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VOCATIONAL TEACHERS’ PERSONALITY TRAITS AND THE WORK MOTIVATION INFORMATION THE 20TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM IN PSYCHOLOGY AT UNK & VDU, DECEMBER 6TH, 2017. ABSTR ACTS THE 21ST INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM IN PSYCHOLOGY AT UNK & VDU, APRIL 25TH, 2018. ABSTR ACTS CONTRIBUTORS REVIEWERS INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS