The problem of which cues, internal or external, permit a person to label and identify his own emotional state has been with us since the days that James (1890) first tendered his doctrine that \"the bodily changes follow directly the perception of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur is the emotion\" (p. 449). Since we are aware of a variety of feeling and emotion states, it should follow from James' proposition that the various emotions will be accompanied by a variety of differentiable bodily states. Following James' pronouncement, a formidable number of studies were undertaken in search of the physiological differentiators of the emotions. The results, in these early days, were almost uniformly negative. All of the emotional states experi-

"Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state": Erratum

In men, high levels of endogenous testosterone (T) seem to encourage behavior intended to dominate - to enhance one's status over - other people. Sometimes dominant behavior is aggressive, its apparent intent being to inflict harm on another person, but often dominance is expressed nonaggressively. Sometimes dominant behavior takes the form of antisocial behavior, including rebellion against authority and law breaking. Measurement of T at a single point in time, presumably indicative of a man's basal T level, predicts many of these dominant or antisocial behaviors. T not only affects behavior but also responds to it. The act of competing for dominant status affects male T levels in two ways. First, T rises in the face of a challenge, as if it were an anticipatory response to impending competition. Second, after the competition, T rises in winners and declines in losers. Thus, there is a reciprocity between T and dominance behavior, each affecting the other. We contrast a reciprocal model, in which T level is variable, acting as both a cause and effect of behavior, with a basal model, in which T level is assumed to be a persistent trait that influences behavior. An unusual data set on Air Force veterans, in which data were collected four times over a decade, enables us to compare the basal and reciprocal models as explanations for the relationship between T and divorce. We discuss sociological implications of these models.

https://users.ox.ac.uk/~kgroup/publications/pdf/kacelnik_norris_1998_bbs_testosterone.pdf

Testosterone and dominance in men.

About the Editors. Acknowledgments. Small Groups: An Overview. Part 1. Group Composition. Introduction. Reading 1. The Contribution of Influence and Selection to Adolescent Peer Group Homogeneity: The Case of Adolescent Cigarette Smoking. Ennett & Bauman. Reading 2. Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women. Kanter . Reading 3 Effects of Crew Composition on Crew Performance: Does the Whole Equal the Sum of Its Parts? Tziner & Eden. Part 2. Group Structure. Introduction. Reading 4. Status, Expectations, and Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review and Test of the Theory. Driskell & Mullen. Reading 5. Asymmetries in Attachments to Groups and to Their Members: Distinguishing Between Common-Identity and Common-Bond Groups. Prentice, Miller, & Lightdale. Reading 6. The "Friendly" Poker Game: A Study of an Ephemeral Role. Zurcher. Part 3. Conflict in Groups. Introduction. Reading 7. Effects of Group Identity on Resource Use in a Simulated Commons Dilemma. Kramer & Brewer. Reading 8. Status, Ideology, and Integrative Complexity on the U.S. Supreme Court: Rethinking the Politics of Political Decision Making. Gruenfeld. Reading 9. Being Better by Being Right: Subjective Group Dynamics and Derogation of In-Group Deviants When Generic Norms Are Undermined. Marques, Abrams, & Serodio. Reading 10. Does Power Corrupt? Kipnis. Part 4. Group Performance. General Introduction. A. Decision Making. Introduction. Reading 11. Collective Induction. Laughlin & Shippy. Reading 12. Social Transition Schemes: Charting the Group's Road to Agreement. Kerr. Reading 13. Pooling of Unshared Information in Group Decision Making: Biased Information Sampling During Discussion. Stasser & Titus. Reading 14. Threat, Cohesion, and Group Effectiveness: Testing a Social Identity Maintenance Perspective on Groupthink. Turner, Pratkanis, Probasco, & Leve. Reading 15. The Effects of Repeated Expressions on Attitude Polarization during Group Discussions. Brauer, Judd, & Gliner. B. Productivity. Introduction. Reading 16. Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing. Latane, Williams, & Harkins. Reading 17. Impact of Group Goals, Task Component Complexity, Effort, and Planning on Group Performance. Weingart. Reading 18. Transactive Memory: Learning Who Knows What in Work Groups and Organizations. Moreland. C. Leadership. Introduction. Reading 19. Self-Monitoring and Trait-Based Variance in Leadership: An Investigation of Leader Flexibility across Multiple Group Situations. Zaccaro, Foti, & Kenny. Reading 20. The Contingency Model: A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. Fiedler. Reading 21. Self-Categorization and Leadership: Effects of Group Prototypicality and Leader Stereotypicality. Hains, Hogg, & Duck.. Reading 22. The Romance of Leadership. Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich. Part 5. Group Ecology. Introduction. Reading 23. Coming Out in the Age of the Internet: Identity "Demarginalization" Through Virtual Group Participation. McKenna & Bargh. Reading 24. Stability, Bistability, and Instability in Small Group Influence Patterns. Arrow. Reading 25. Socialization in Organizations and Work Groups. Moreland & Levine. Reading 26. Beyond Task and Maintenance: Defining External Functions in Groups. Ancona & Caldwell

Small Groups: Key Readings

This paper describes a biosocial model of status in face-to-face groups. It argues that status ranks are allocated among members of a group through face-to-face interaction and that the allocation process is similar across each primate species, including humans. Every member of a group signifies its rank through physical or vocal demeanor. For example, behavioral signs of dominant status include erect posture, glares, eye contact, strutting, and (in humans) assertive speech. Individuals whose behaviors exhibit dominance show high or rising levels of testosterone compared to those who exhibit deference. Testosterone and dominance are reciprocally related. The model relies more on research on males than on females. It is proposed as a theory about both sexes, but with a caution that little is known about sex differences in the relation of hormones to dominance behavior. It has become dear, after two decades of primate studies, that the \"dominance orders\" of monkeys and apes have important commonalities with status hierarchies in small, established human groups, suggesting that they have common evolutionary roots (Mazur; Savin-Williams and Freeman).' Whereas early theories of face-to-face status processes among humans have often depended on complex cognitive and linguistic mechanisms, requiring human-level mental abilities, it now seems proper to seek explanatory mechanisms that apply across the primate species, not just to humans.

A Biosocial Model of Status in Face-to-Face Primate Groups

Testosterone, and winning and losing in human competition.

Eye contact between two people often serves as a channel of nonverbal communication. It may signal aggresive or dominating intent, as in a staredown, or it may convey an impression of close bonding, intimacy, or a request for aid, depending on how actors define the situation. Some theories of nonverbal communication assume that mutual gaze is physiologically arousing and that this arousal accounts in part for the efficacy of eye contact as a communication channel. The first experiment reported here shows that mutual gaze does indeed cause more physiological arousal than control conditions of nonmutual gaze. The second experiment demonstrates that an actor can communicate with another person by gazing in such a manner that he can manipulate that person's physiology. A third experiment demonstrates that a subject's response to a mutual gaze is a good predictor of his or her degree of influence (dominance) in subsequent social interaction. These results emphasize the rapid emergence of status differentiation...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/info/2778851

Joshua Heller

Papers

Physiological aspects of communication via mutual gaze.