Emotional Ambivalence Expression Elicits Dominance From Others, Study
Christopher Philip
Over four studies researcher Naomi Rothman, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois found that the expression of ambivalence is a cue that others key in on in their quest for dominance.
In the study it was found that expressions of happiness and anger showed some emotion, but ambivalence, conveyed deliberation, or thought process whereby others conceivably could overcome them in a dominance competition.
Rothman defines emotional ambivalence as the “expression of tension and conflict which results from the simultaneous experience of two emotional states that primarily differ in valence.” That is, ambivalence is composed of positive and negative feelings occurring at the same time.
The state of ambivalence suggests that a person is torn between two distinct emotional states. Naturally, this leads to lesser action and more deliberation – “paralysis by analysis.”
As Rothman argues, this might lead others to perceive those suffering ambivalence as submissive creating an opening for others to take charge and dominate.
Results from the four studies show: “(1) participants can identify an expression of tension and conflict as ambivalence, and can reliably distinguish ambivalence expressions from the expression of sadness, happiness, and anger; (2) expressed emotional ambivalence elicits dominance in observers because expressed ambivalence leads observers to perceive individuals as deliberative, and thus submissive and (3) the reason expressed ambivalence elicits perception of submissiveness is because expressed ambivalence suggests a lower state of action readiness (more deliberation and less implementation).”
Prior research has defined ambivalence as a form of tension and conflict and that others readily perceive it. It shows itself through facial expressions, body postures, behaviour, tone of voice and movement. Additionally, ambivalence may produce the impression of wanting to draw near with a simultaneous impression of wanting to avoid.
In her quest to find the expression of ambivalence Rothman first looked at data from compound expression such as morphed images of happiness and sadness, but since previous studies have not permitted subjects to rate them as ambivalent, it was unclear if they would be recognized. In the end, she settled on conflict and tension as displaying emotional ambivalence.
In the first study subjects viewed short 1-minute videos of a female actor portraying happiness, sadness, anger and ambivalence in order to produce relevant and accurate video clips for use in the other studies. In each video, the actor used the same script but varied the emotion. Sound was turned off on replay. Nonverbal behaviour was modified between clips including facial expressions, gestures, and postures.
Note how each emotion is created:
Happiness was displayed through smiling often, gesturing freely during speech, head was titled slightly toward. Movements were energetic, active and expansive.
Sadness was displayed with frequent frowning, raised inner eyebrow, slumped shoulders and posture, hands placed on lap below the table, and head titled down. During most of the video, the actor looked down and avoided eye contact with her partner. She was not energetic, active or expansive.
Anger was displayed with eyebrows pulled together and down, lips were pressed together and teeth were clenched, fists were clenched and shoulders were squared toward the table with forearms and elbows placed on the table. Her upper body was erect and upright but slightly learning forward. Her feet were directly beneath her on the floor as if she was ready for action. Eye contact was sporadic. Movements were expansive, energetic and active.
Ambivalence was created by telling the actor that “complex emotional situations can elicit multiple opposing emotions, and that the tension and conflict this state creates are likely to be reflected in the face and the body, so that the expression of ambivalence might appear somewhat like other emotions that are characterized by unpleasantness
and tension (for instance, anxiety), ambivalence should also show more physical evidence of the individual being pulled in two different directions simultaneously (e.g., torn and conflicted).”
Thus, in ambivalence the actor moved her inner brow raising and lowering it, her hands fidgeted in front of her body, she tilted her head back and forth, and her shoulders shrugged. Her eyes moved down, off into space and made eye contact. Thus, ambivalence was created by showing one movement in one direction and then in the other direction.
The participants viewing the videos correctly rated them to reflect the intended emotion.
In the second study, participants viewed videos of happy, angry and ambivalent and were tested on their intensions to dominant the various conditions. Results showed that those in the ambivalent condition elicited grater intensions to dominate their perceived partner.
In the third study, participants first watched a video which was taken from the first study alongside a video displaying a neutral expression. They were ostensibly told it was of the person they would be “negotiating” with over a reward to be split. In fact, there was no such partner, but rather it was set up to test their motivation to cheat their
”partner” out of a shared reward. Thus, the aim was at determining if participants would take advantage and dominate the more ambivalent over the angry or happy.
According to the game, the subjects were told they were able to make an ‘offer’ to their partner and if accepted, they would gain the rewards as determined by them, the “decider.” If the offer was rejected, then both would receive nothing. In most cases, offers of $3-4 out of $10 are normally accepted (past studies), with most people, 75% offering $5 (even split).
Results showed that participants kept significantly more money in the ambivalent video condition ($5.58) than the angry video ($4.83), neutral video ($4.86) and happy ($5.17) thus confirming the hypothesis that ambivalent nonverbal expressions leads other people to dominate.
The fourth study asked participants to imagine themselves in a same sex roommate scenario and come to a decision. In one case the roommate is happy, angry, or mixed feelings.
The scenario read as follows:
“You have just returned from your summer vacation and you are moving into an apartment with a girl (guy) you just met on Craigslist, a website in which individuals can meet others who are looking for roommates in various cities around the country. You do not know this person very well at all. In fact, you are still building your impression of her (him). Your new roommate and you have just started to discuss who should get each of two bedrooms in your small apartment. The rooms differ on several dimensions (i.e., size of room, size of the closet, size of the windows, view, noise, etc.).
You are currently in front of her (him) and noticing her (his) reaction to the discussion. You think to yourself: Participants in the happy emotional display condition then read: “She (he) seems pretty happy about this discussion; rather pleased and enthusiastic about it.” Participants in the angry emotional display condition then read: “She (he) seems somewhat angry about this discussion; rather annoyed and irritated about it.” Participants in the ambivalent emotional display condition then read: “She (he) seems to have mixed feelings about this discussion; rather torn, conflicted and ambivalent about it.”
Results, once again, confirmed the hypothesis. When faced with ambivalence, subjects reacted by increasing their dominance as the cue was read as submission. The results also showed that those expressing ambivalence are deliberating rather than implementing and this supports their submissive archetype.
Drawing Conclusions
In negotiation situations, one should avoid appearing ambivalent, unless one wishes to be dominated. This is because ambivalence is considered by others as a signal of submission. Showing mixed feelings and tension through nonverbal behaviour indicates to other that one is unsure and this, in turn, elicits a dominance response from others.
Image Credit: Jonathan Lidbeck
Resources
Rothman, Naomi B. Steering Sheep: How Expressed Emotional Ambivalence Elicits Dominance in Interdependent Decision Making Contexts. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2019. 116: 66-82.