Negotiating with Powerful Males 305 SEX DIFFERENCES IN NEGOTIATING WITH POWERFUL MALES

Transcription

1 Negotiating with Powerful Males 305 SEX DIFFERENCES IN NEGOTIATING WITH POWERFUL MALES An Ethological Analysis of Approaches to Nightclub Doormen Frank Salter Max Planck Society Karl Grammer and Anja Rikowski Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Urban Ethology, University of Vienna A hypothesis derived from evolutionary theory and previous qualitative observation is that male and female subordinates deploy different interpersonal signals to obtain concessions from powerful males. The present study tested this hypothesis by means of a quantitative naturalistic observational method. Would-be patrons were videotaped approaching the entrance of an exclusive nightclub in Munich, Germany, where doormen control entry. Patrons dominance, affiliative, and sexual signals in gestures and dress were coded for conditions of low and high doorman threat. Although both sexes used appeasing gestures of smiles and greetings, females deployed many appeasements using affiliative and courtship signals while males tended to withhold appeasements by masking agonistic affect. Moreover, when approaching larger numbers of doormen, males accelerated while females slowed down. The evolutionary hypothesis was confirmed, at least for our German sample, that males and females use some different strategies for minimizing threat from powerful males. KEY WORDS: Appeasements; Behavioral strategies; Dominance; Evolution; Nightclub doormen; Power; Sex differences; Superior-subordinate interactions Tactics for negotiating dominance have received much attention from etholo gists and social psychologists. The literature contains substantial cross-cultural Received September 16, 2003; accepted December 15, 2003; final version received October 5, Address all correspondence to Dr. Frank Salter, Max Planck Society, Human Ethology, Von-der- Tann-Strasse 3, Andechs, Germany, salter@erl.orn.mpg.de Human Nature, Fall 2005, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp /98/$6.00 =.15

2 306 Human Nature / Fall 2005 and cross-species evidence for greater male aggression and dominance (e.g., Buss and Shakelford 1997; Maccoby and Jacklin 1980). However, these findings probably do not wholly capture the tactics used successfully to negotiate subordinate roles. Do the sexes differ in behaviors for obtaining favorable outcomes despite subordinate status? Anecdotal accounts from popular fiction frequently portray courtship behavior used to manipulate superiors, typically with females in the subordinate role. More generally, it is known that in several informal settings affiliative gestures are used by subordinates to gain concessions from dominant individuals. Examples include the behavioral components of the child schema that release nurturing motivation in adults (Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989:60 62). Among adults, requests are usually accompanied by affiliative gestures and words signifying friendly or at least non-aggressive motivation (Brown and Levinson 1987). Between the sexes, flirt behavior is one type of affiliative tactic (e.g., Grammer 1995; Moore 1985). An experimental psychological study has found that sexual stimuli inhibit aggression in males (Baron 1974). Yet few studies have focused explicitly on sex differences in behavior used by subordinates to influence superiors (e.g., Halberstadt and Saitta 1987). Analyses of interpersonal signals in advertisements by Grammer (1995, 2001) show that female courtship behaviors are displayed in conjunction with submissive gestures. Since behaviors shown in advertisements are posed, this research does not indicate whether courtship behavior is used in naturalistic settings as an appeasement. However, female flirtation was implicated as a tactic used to influence male doormen in Salter s (1995: chapter 7) qualitative study of a nightclub in Brisbane, Australia. While both sexes showed signs of tension when confronted by doormen, females were more likely to show affiliative gestures than were males, who showed more signs of deference belonging to the agonistic dimension (agonism is the emotional and physiological arousal that prepares the organism for flight or fight). Female affiliation frequently included flirtation in a form typical in European-derived societies of smile, head-toss, touch, and sustained eye contact, a pattern denied males in heterosexual settings. Nightclubs are valuable observational sites for studying dominance and related behaviors, since patrons and would-be patrons attempt to enter in concentrated streams through one or a few entrances past threatening doormen. Doormen constitute a threat because in the nightclub setting they are a power to reckon with. Incoming members of the public are subordinated to doormen whose legal authority to refuse entry is backed not only by police and courts, but also by a reputation for and often appearance of fighting prowess, as well as superiority of numbers. At the Munich nightclub being studied, one tall and aggressive doorman took the lead in confronting insubordinate would-be patrons. We observed two physical conflicts involving this doorman, both of which he won. In most organizational settings, direct insubordination in the face of legal commands is not feasible (Salter 1995). However, it is often possible for a subordinate to induce the superior to change an unpleasant command or not to issue the com-

3 Negotiating with Powerful Males 307 mand in the first place. Appeasement tactics are common from individuals confronted with an unwanted command, or the possibility of one. Humans possess an extensive repertoire of appeasing verbal and nonverbal behaviors that can be grouped into submissive and affiliative gestures and speech (Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989; Mehrabian 1972). Appeasements are behaviors that reduce the aggressive motivation of another person. They include smiles, breaking or tilting of eye contact to reduce threatening gaze, humor, self-deprecation, and withholding aggressive behavior. These appeasements figure prominently as subordinate influence tactics. Less well analyzed are the ways in which males and females differ in their use of appeasements, especially in organizational settings. It should also be noted that the absence of a cover charge increased the risk of being refused entry since this eliminated one avenue for negotiating entry. It remains to be quantitatively established whether, in naturalistic hierarchical settings, courtship signals serve to appease aggressive authority. To test this hypothesis we surreptitiously videoed interactions between doormen and incoming patrons at a Munich nightclub. We coded three types of doorman threat as well as greeting and avoidance behaviors. Patron behavior was coded with 23 categories drawn from the ethological literature (see Appendix) and included self-presentation by means of clothing style, especially amount of visible skin and tightness of clothing, since these are releasers of sexual interest (see Grammer 1995; Grammer and Renninger 2004). The following hypotheses were derived: 1. Males and females should receive different amounts of threat and attention from doormen. 2. Patrons should be sensitive to doorman threat, initiating interactions with doormen or reacting promptly to their presence in a manner likely to reduce the likelihood of being refused entry to the nightclub. 3. Males and females should differ in mannerism, i.e., their behavioral repertoire should be different and sensitive to doormen s threat and attention. 4. In particular, males and females might differ in their speed of approach in a manner compatible with their overall behavioral strategy in dealing with threatening doormen, the difference in speed increasing with the threat. 5. Patron appearance should be another sex difference. Women s clothing style might be used to lower the threat posed by doormen. We expected female dress to form part of an affiliative strategy and for male dress to play little or no role along this dimension. METHODS Field Methods A video camera was positioned so as to face out of the nightclub s main entrance (Figure 1) from a height of about 2.5 m. The tripod was obscured by foliage and although the camera itself was not covered, few patrons noticed it. Taping was confined to times of reduced crowdedness when single, unobstructed

4 308 Human Nature / Fall 2005 Figure 1. Plan of the Munich nightclub entrance. entries were more common. From a total video record of 500 single males and 141 single females we retrieved 82 and 56 clearly visible approaches, respectively. This relatively small number of cases from the originally recorded 641 individuals resulted from the strict criteria we applied with respect to comparability (e.g., weather)

5 Negotiating with Powerful Males 309 and visibility (e.g., free from obstructing crowds) to ensure the accurate and complete application of the behavioral coding system in every case (see below). Operational Categories The general threat to incoming patrons was the perceived risk of being refused entry in conjunction with the presence and behavior of watching doormen. The latter was operationalized as the discrete doorman behaviors of watching, turning, and moving towards patrons. The nightclub rejects customers who are badly dressed, for example those wearing sandshoes or sandals or even unfashionable clothes. On busy nights when the club is full, the risk of refusal is high since many non-regular customers are barred. Five doorman behavior categories and 23 behavioral categories were coded (see Appendix). Duration and speed codings were significant in all cases, but only 15 of the other categories showed significant frequencies. Weather, crowdedness, and age were also coded for each event. We also coded the number of doormen present and the appearance of patrons, namely the sexiness of dress, which was defined as degree of clothing tightness and proportion of skin showing over the three body zones of legs, torso, and arms. Analytical Methods Entering patrons recorded on video were clocked from their first appearance to the point at which they placed a foot on the top step immediately in front of the doormen (see Figure 1). Behavioral data were coded using a program (Mac-Max) developed by the second author working on a computer linked to time-coded video playback. An indexed category of doormen threat was compiled from the first three doormen categories. This new category was coded when at least one of these original three applied. Indexed categories were also compiled for patron appearance and male and female mannerisms, explained in the results section below. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software. Not all variables were normally distributed. Therefore correlation coefficients refer to Spearman rank correlation (ρ) at a significance level of p 0.05, two-tailed, if not indicated otherwise. RESULTS Description of the Situation Age was divided into two classes by observation: younger than 50 years and older than 50 years. Only 3.6% of the females and 7.3% of the males appeared to be older than 50 years. In the approaches chosen for analysis, the entrance was not crowded and the numbers of patrons present besides the observed subject varied from 0 to 8, with a median of The number of doormen at the entrance varied from 1 to 7 with a median of 2.

6 310 Human Nature / Fall 2005 Table 1. Doormen Attention and Threat for Males and Females Doormen Attention and Threat to Male and Female Patrons Regarding the amount of threat presented by doormen we found that the number of doormen was lower in the early evening and higher later on. As female patrons tended to come later in the evening, they encountered significantly more doormen (females: median = 3; males: median = 2; n = 138, χ 2 = 14.5, p = 0.001). The admittance rate for females was 95% and for males 91.7%. This difference was not significant. The behavioral threat presented by doormen was calculated as the number of doormen who fixated on a patron, oriented their bodies or moved towards him or her. In addition we measured the duration of threats in seconds. Data on individual doorman threat and its duration were used to calculate an index of total threat, i.e., the number of threat actions performed by all doormen present. A measure of total threat was needed because patrons experienced a variety of threats based on different combinations of doorman actions (i.e., all doormen could act or the others could leave the action to a single doorman). We assumed that one doorman emitting a threat while several others stood still was perceived as less threatening than all doormen emitting the same threat. Table 1 shows that male and female patrons received similar total threat and duration of threats. But male patrons received significantly more threats per doorman, including cases of single doormen, than did female patrons. Interaction between Doormen and Patrons Males (n = 81) Females (n = 56) Doormen Doormen Patron Behavior Patron Behavior Median (ρ) Median (ρ) Total doormen threat ** ** Total doormen attention (sec) ** ** Threat/doorman (median) 1* 0.37** 0.5* 0.24 Attention/doorman (sec) ** * median test, p 0.01 ** Spearman correlation coefficient, two-tailed, p 0.01 The correlations between doormen s and patron s behavior (Table 1) indicate that these behaviors were highly interrelated. In other words, patrons obviously interacted with doorman and did not simply walk past them. These interactions were found to occur in a short period of time. Females spent a median of 5.5 sec. and males a median of 5.6 sec. passing through the area of the nightclub s entrance (see Figure 2). This difference was not significant. Episode duration could also

7 Negotiating with Powerful Males 311 Figure 2. Distribution of female (a) and male (b) behaviors over patron and doormen sequences. depend on the crowdedness of the entrance. We found a positive correlation between crowdedness and duration of the episodes (n = 56, ρ = 0.24, p = 0.06) for females but not for the males (n = 81, ρ = 0.00, n.s.). In order to avoid any potential bias due to confounding effects of crowdedness we decided to apply further statistical analyses only to those cases where one patron was on the scene.

8 312 Human Nature / Fall 2005 Approach Speed and Doormen Attention and Threat Approach speed could both threaten doormen and be the result of patron anxiety. Single females approached doormen with median speed of 1.70 m/sec. (n = 36) and males approached doormen with a median speed of 1.67 m/sec. (n = 67). This difference in approach speed was not significant. Since larger groups might be more threatening than smaller ones, we compared male and female patrons who approached three or more doormen. Under this condition, and when the subject was the only patron present, the median female approach speed was 1.81 (n = 23). Interestingly, females (n = 12) slowed down significantly when there were more than three doormen present, approaching with a median of 1.49 m/sec. (n = 36, median test, χ 2 = 5.6, p = 0.02). The situation was completely different for males. With fewer than three doormen they approached at a median speed of 1.64 m/sec. (n = 58) but speed increased significantly to 2.03 m/ sec. (n = 8) when there were more than three doormen present (n = 66, median test, χ 2 = 4.4, p = 0.03). Correlations between approach speed and doorman behavior reveal that females with high approach speed received more attention from multiple doormen (n = 36, ρ = 0.43, p = 0.009) than from lone doormen (n = 36, ρ = 0.38, p = 0.05). For males there were no significant correlations between approach speed and doorman behavior. Patron Appearance and Doormen Attention and Threat Patron appearance, in particular female clothing style, is another factor that could be related to doorman threat. We calculated indices of the amount of skin showing on torso, arms, and legs (each on a 1 4 scale). The result was an index with a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 12. In similar manner tightness of clothing was registered for the three body regions. In order to take fashion into account we calculated visible skin and tightness of dress on legs separately as miniskirt (minimum 2, maximum 8). Finally an index for sexy outfit was calculated as the sum of visible skin and tightness. These indices were then correlated with doormen threat. Female appearance correlated negatively with the amount of total doormen threat and attention (n = 36, skin ρ = 0.1, n.s.; tightness ρ = 0.26, n.s.; mini ρ = 0.36, p = 0.05; and sexy-outfit ρ = 0.16, n.s.). This is not so for males (n = 68, skin ρ = 0.04; n.s., tightness ρ = 0.00, n.s.; mini ρ = 0.16, n.s.; and sexy outfit ρ = 0.00, n.s.). The total duration of the threat correlated positively with all categories for females (n = 36, skin ρ = 0.30, n.s.; tightness ρ = 0.34, p = 0.04; mini ρ = 0.40, p = 0.02; and sexy outfit ρ = 0.38, p = 0.02). No significant relationship was found between a single doorman s actions and female patron appearance except that single doorman attention correlated positively with appearance (n = 36, skin ρ = 0.35, p = 0.04; tightness ρ = 0.30, n.s.; mini ρ = 0.31, n.s.; and sexy outfit ρ = 0.36, p = 0.03). This was not so for males. Thus the more skin a female showed and the tighter her clothes, the less threat but the more attention she received.

9 Negotiating with Powerful Males 313 Showing off behavior would be indicated if speed were correlated negatively with appearance. We tested the possibility that females wearing a sexy outfit extended their exposure time to the doormen, as part of a consistent display strategy. Although we found negative correlations between speed and sexiness of dress, they did not reach significance (n = 36, skin ρ = 0.03, n.s.; tightness ρ = 0.18, n.s.; mini ρ = 0.20, n.s.; and sexy outfit ρ = 0.07, n.s.). Patron Behavior: Male and Female Mannerism To analyze patron behavior we first made a repertoire comparison between males and females in order to determine sex differences and calculate an index of mannerisms. For this part of the analysis all cases were analyzed. Episodes were brief and therefore many behaviors occurred only once. Table 2 presents the percentage of subjects who performed the behavior. Since behavior may vary in quality (e.g., a long smile might have different features from a short smile) we also tested sex differences for the total duration of each behavior. Statistical tests were made with the original frequencies and durations. The results demonstrate significant sex differences in the occurrence of some behaviors: pocket, grasp, clasp, parade, smile, neck-open and nod. These behaviors were used to calculate the respective index for mannerisms, i.e., those behaviors performed predominantly by one sex. For the appearance of mannerism, no significant differences were found with respect to the number of doormen (females: n = 36, median test, n.s.; males: n = 56, n.s.). When mannerism was correlated with doormen threat we found a negative but not significant correlation for females with total threat (n = 36, ρ = 0.19, n.s.). Doorman attention, both singly and as a group, correlated significantly positively with female mannerisms (n = 36, ρ = 0.39, p = 0.01; ρ = 0.40, p = 0.01, respectively). No correlations between male mannerisms and doormen threat reached significance. Female mannerism was significantly positively correlated with appearance such that the more mannerisms a woman performed the more skin she showed (n = 36, ρ = 0.33, p = 0.04), the tighter were her clothes (n = 36, ρ = 0.34, p =.03), the sexier was her overall appearance (n = 36, ρ = 0.39, p = 0.02), and the shorter her skirt (ρ = 0.43, p = 0.008). Moreover female approach speed and number of mannerisms were found to be significantly negatively correlated (ρ = 0.33, p = 0.04). Sequential Analysis of Threat and Behavior In order to determine the direction of causality we applied a sequential analysis of behavior. In particular we wanted to know who initiated the interactions between doormen and patrons. In 75% of female approaches the patron showed the first behavior in an interaction (n = 56). This was the same for males (n = 81 male approaches; the patron made the first move 69% of the time). Thus both male and

10 314 Human Nature / Fall 2005 Table 2. Percentage of Males and Females Who Showed Behaviors at Least Once Females Males p* n = 56 n = 89 % % Frequency Duration Greet n.s. n.s. Head down n.s. n.s. Head up n.s. n.s. Fixate n.s. n.s. Head tilt n.s. n.s. Neck open Nod Smile Cant n.s. n.s. Verbalize n.s. n.s. Palm n.s. n.s. Parade Shake hands n.s. n.s. Sway n.s. n.s. Auto-manipulation n.s. n.s. Clasp Hair stroke Pocket Primp n.s. n.s. Tense mouth Total (median) 9 9 n.s. n.s. * Mann-Whitney U-Test, two-tailed bold: behaviors that classified either as male or female mannerisms where p 0.01 female patrons usually initiated interactions with the doormen. When we selected only those cases where the patron made the first move, sex-differences occurred. Among the 56 males in this category, the repertoire consisted of fixate (76.8%), head down (7.1%), hand in pocket (10.7%), sway (1.3%), and auto-manipulation (1.8%). The repertoire of the 42 females who initiated interactions also showed fixate as the most prominent behavior (90.5%), but followed by primp (9.5%). Females thus reordered their clothing when they became visible to doormen. When we selected only those cases where a doorman made the first move then the doorman repertoire was almost the same for patrons of both sexes. In 10 female approaches the doorman started with fixate (80%) and in 23 male approaches the doorman started with fixate (69.9%). But in the case of male patrons doormen additionally often made a move towards the patron (26.1%). One possibility is that

11 Negotiating with Powerful Males 315 the first move by the doormen was triggered by the patrons appearance. However, the analysis indicated no differences for skin, tightness, miniskirt, or sexy outfit in both sexes whether the patron or the doormen made the first move. Thus the appearance of the patron did not cause the doormen to act before the patron. In addition to the occurrence of the first move we analyzed the latency of doormen s first move from the moment when the patron became visible. The mean latency of the first doorman action to an approaching female was 0.34 sec. (s.d. = 0.13) and to males 0.29 sec. (s.d. = 0.09). Thus doormen seemed to make a splitsecond decision. We also tested whether this behavior was triggered by patron appearance. Indeed, for females, miniskirts correlated significantly negatively with doorman latency (females: n = 35, ρ = 0.35, p = 0.035; males: n = 61, ρ = 0.09, n.s.). However, the amount of skin shown by male patrons was positively related to latency, i.e., the more skin a male showed the longer it took for doormen to react (males: ρ = 0.38, p = 0.002; females: ρ = 0.06, n.s.). In order to determine the sequential relation of doormen to patron behavior we applied a modified lag sequential analysis (Bakeman and Gottman 1986; Sackett 1978, 1979). Lag Sequential Analysis (LSA) is a technique for gathering quantitative data by observing individuals as they perform their normal activities. It is traditionally used to study person-to-person interaction by measuring the number of times certain behaviors precede or follow a selected behavior. With respect to our data we determined sequential dependencies for the number of times a match event followed the criterion event (i.e., lag 1 for the first event in the sequence, lag 2 for the second event, and so on). A modification in the present analysis was that we did not use a specific criterion behavior but instead used the start of the sequence. This method results in a distribution of behaviors over the sequential lags (lag 1, lag 2,, lag x) and allows visualization of the type of behaviors that preceded others. In order to compare behaviors occurring at different frequencies the distributions were z-transformed. Figure 2 shows the distributions for doormen threat and sexspecific mannerism. From these distributions it becomes apparent that doormen threats preceded the occurrence of mannerisms in both male and female patrons. For both sexes the maximum of doormen threat is reached at lag 3, whereas the peak of mannerisms is reached later (Figure 2). While the maximum for female mannerism was reached at lag 4 (Figure 2a), males reached the maximum at lag 7 (Figure 2b). In addition, less-intense threat yields fewer mannerisms in females (see correlation above). We conclude that whether or not patrons mannerisms reduce doormen threat, such mannerisms are expressed in reaction to doormen s threat. DISCUSSION Our study confirmed the five hypotheses concerning sex differences in subordinate behavior, while adding interesting behavioral details. Male and female patrons received different quantities of doormen threat when approaching a single doorman,

12 316 Human Nature / Fall 2005 although the difference was not significant when more than one doorman was present. The remaining hypotheses were unambiguously confirmed. Patrons were indeed sensitive to the threatening behavior of doormen, responding with mannerisms that showed some sex differences. One of these differences was approach speed. When there were three or more doormen, males accelerated towards them while females slowed down. Finally, female dress did indeed correlate with an affiliative approach to doormen, whereas male dress did not. Female clothing that was tight and showed skin attracted more doorman attention but less threat. We interpret the striking sex differences in number and onset of mannerisms, as well as walking speed in the face of doormen, as a tendency for the sexes to deploy different tactics for negotiating with powerful males. The sex difference in approach speed became apparent when the number of doormen increased beyond two. Females slowed their walking pace whereas males increased theirs. Male patrons attempted to withhold affective behaviors, but once doormen showed a threatening behavior such as approach or fixation, they tended to show gestures such as nod greeting and hand-in-pocket. We interpret the male strategy as fleeing through the threat, an attempt to minimize exposure to doorman scrutiny. The strategy was usually performed by masking anxiety with a generally restrained demeanor, sometimes punctuated by a greeting reduced to essentials of eye contact and nod. Female patrons expressed more mannerisms than did males and began doing so more promptly after receiving threats from doormen. One is tempted to conclude that the reason they slowed down as the number of doormen increased was to give themselves more time to execute a mannerism-based appeasement strategy. In the 27% longer approach time in the face of several doormen (relative to male approach time) females were more likely to show mannerisms of parade, neck-open, hair stroke, head-tilt, auto (face-touch), and smile, and to start doing so well before males did so (lag 4 vs. lag 7 in Figure 2). One immediate cause of the sex difference might have been a difference in agonistic control. If females have a generally lower fear threshold, they are likely to emit appeasement and show other signs of anxiety earlier than males when responding to the same threat. The notion that females use mannerisms in a qualitatively different manner from males is supported by the correlation between female dress and behavior. In contrast, no significant association was found between behavior and dress in males. Females with bare or tightly clothed legs tended to show more mannerisms, supporting the idea that sexually releasing behaviors are interpersonal tools that can be executed by dress and that can be turned to attracting mates or appeasing male aggression (Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989; Grammer and Renninger 2004). If we assume that the appeasing effect on doormen works partly by releasing sexual motivation in them (Baron 1974), then mate-choice and appeasing functions can be performed simultaneously by this powerful social tool. This supports the hypothesis of Eibl- Eibesfeldt (1990), who argued that the reptilian integration of sexuality and dominance is still to be found in humans, though overlain and mediated by a subsequently evolved affiliative mechanism evident in courtship and pair bonding.

13 Negotiating with Powerful Males 317 The different tactics of males and females seem to have been prudent. Contrasting patron behavior with doormen responses allows us to assess the appropriateness of patron behavior. Indexed doormen threat was directed less towards female patrons who were dressed sexily (i.e., high proportion of tight clothing or skin showing on legs or torso) or who emitted female-typical mannerisms. On the other hand, neither male appearance nor mannerism changed the level of doorman threat, suggesting that their tactic of minimizing exposure time and masking affect was more likely to succeed in gaining entry than an attempt at appeasement. This is further confirmation of the original hypothesis that gestures, including dress, that release sexual motivation in doormen tend to appease doorman aggression. The prudential nature of sex differences in patron behavior is further indicated by comments made by the nightclub management and by experienced doormen. They agreed that the presence of more females boosted business by attracting more affluent male customers. For the same reason they rated beauty and femininity as criteria for accepting would-be female patrons. One might suppose that female display of stereotypically female dress and gestures, apart from its appeasement function, would enhance their attractiveness to doormen and thus make them more acceptable as customers. In light of this, feminine behavior might be functional independent of its motivational effect on doormen. A more likely alternative is that doormen use their motivational responses, such as evaluation of beauty, as processing shortcuts for judging the suitability of females. The shorthand decision rule might be something like: Admit females I find attractive and/or who meet objective criteria. Different criteria seem to apply for males. The non-significant correlation between males dress and their own behavior might have been different if we had coded for status indicators, rating formal to informal in descending order. Instead we focused on body display, and the results indicate that females but not males make use of it as an appeasement tactic. Although not measured, our impression was that male success in gaining admission was unrelated to a conventional measure of clothing status. Fashionableness was perhaps a criterion, although decidedly old-fashioned outfits gained admission. Older males tended to wear more formal clothes of suit or sport jacket, but young males gained admission in a wide array of costumes, suggesting that in future research, coding clothing (as a pointer to social status) will need to be sensitive to fashion trends. This will be difficult given that fashion changes quickly and varies between class and culture. Female doormen were not present in our study. Should male subordinates also be expected to use courtship behavior to influence female superiors? The qualitative observations made by Salter (1995: chapter 7) in Brisbane, Australia, encompassed males approaching a female doorman. Based on a handful of cases, subordinate males appeared to use affiliative gestures more with this female doorman than they did with male doormen, an interpretation that remains to be confirmed quantitatively. We hypothesize that it will not completely mirror the situation of female subordinates and male superiors since male courtship behavior includes status dis-

14 318 Human Nature / Fall 2005 play, and this is likely to be inconsistent with subordinate rank vis-à-vis female doormen. Another typical male courtship criterion is an age difference, with the male being somewhat older, yet age also correlates with status, likely reducing its value as a male subordinate tactic. Another category that should be addressed in future research is the behavior of patrons attempting to enter in groups. All-male groups were more frequent, larger, more closely scrutinized by doormen, and more likely to be refused entry than were all-female groups. They also approached in a greater variety of orientations clumped, linear, separated only to rejoin in the nightclub, talking among themselves or silent, and all greeting the doormen or only the leading member doing so. Male-female pairs are also worthy of study, especially from the ethological perspective. For all types of groups we expect self-presentation of members to be affected by group characteristics, possibly involving coordination and role specialization that function to manage the impression of the group as a whole. This study was supported by the Research Center for Human Ethology in the Max Planck Society for which we would like to thank Prof. Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt. We thank the owner and staff of the Nachtcafe Nightclub in Munich for their kind cooperation, in particular Wulf-Dieter, Andreas, Gunter, Jani, Rueben, Ogün, and Phillip. Finally, we thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the original version, and Bernhard Fink of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Urban Ethology, Vienna, for his editorial assistance with the second version. Frank Salter is a researcher with the Max Planck Society, Andechs, Germany, and a senior scientist at the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Urban Ethology, University of Vienna. His major research interests are the ethological analysis of hierarchy and ethnic politics. Recent books include On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration (2003, Peter Lang), and the edited collection Welfare, Ethnicity, and Altruism: New Data and Evolutionary Theory (2004, Frank Cass). Karl Grammer is co-director of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Urban Ethology, University of Vienna. His research interests center on naturalistic and computer-simulation methods for studying interpersonal relations, especially the evolutionary origins of mate choice criteria. He developed motion energy detection as a method for cross-cultural analysis of courtship communication. A recent book, Evolutionary Aesthetics (2003, Springer), was co-edited with E. Voland. Anja Rikowski completed her masters research at the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Urban Ethology, University of Vienna, on the connection between body odor, bilateral symmetry, and attractiveness. APPENDIX Coded Variables Five doorman behavioral categories were recorded. A composite sixth category, Threat, was compiled from the first three. Threat was coded when at one of the first three applied. 1. Attention: face and/or eyes oriented towards incoming patron 2. Actively orienting the body and/or face toward a patron

15 Negotiating with Powerful Males Moving closer to the patron 4. Greet patron 5. Avoidance when doorman and patron on collision course Twenty-three patron behavior categories were coded. Duration and speed were significant in all cases, but only 15 of the other categories showed significant frequencies. These are indicated with an asterisk below. 1. Duration (timed from first appearance to exit) 2. *Greet (verbal or nonverbal) 3. *Head down (head tilted forward more than approx. 10 ) 4. *Head up (chin tilted up more than approx. 10 ) 5. *Fixate (patron looks at a doorman) 6. *Neck (head tilted to side) 7. *Neck open (head tilted so as to present front of neck to doorman) 8. *Nod (a brief movement forward of head) 9. *Smile 10. Speed (timed from first appearance to halfway point) 11. *Verbalize (speak to doorman could overlap greet) Behaviors predicted to be rare: 12. Cant (angle of shoulders to torso changes from 90 ) 13. Fixed (horizontal forwards gaze maintained throughout) 14. Palm (present palm of hand to doorman can overlap greet) 15. *Parade (exaggerated walk with chest and buttocks presented with rotation of hips) 16. Shake (shake hands with doorman overlaps greet) 17. *Sway (exaggerated walk with side-to-side rocking and large arm movements) 18. Tense mouth (compressed and/or stretched) Auto-manipulations: 19. *Auto (hand to face) 20. Clasp (self-holding, one hand to opposed elbow) 21. *Hair stroke 22. *Pocket (hand in pocket) 23. *Primp (adjust clothing) Controlled variables were also coded for each event: 1. Weather (events during rain were excluded) 2. Crowdedness (number of people in the entrance way) 3. Age (in two categories by appearance, 49 and below, 50 and above) Intervening variables were also coded for each event: 1. Number of doormen 2. Patron s appearance ( sexiness of appearance coded for clothing tightness and proportion of skin showing over three body zones: legs, torso, and arms).

16 320 Human Nature / Fall 2005 REFERENCES Bakeman, R., and J. M. Gottman 1986 Observing Interaction: An Introduction to Sequential Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. Baron, R. A The Aggression-Inhibiting Influence of Heightened Sexual Arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30: Brown, P., and S. C. Levinson 1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1978) Buss, D. M., and T. K. Shackelford 1997 Human Aggression in Evolutionary Psychological Perspective. Clinical Psychology Review 17: Davis, M. A., P. A., Larosa, and D. P. Foshee 1991 Emotion Work in Supervisor-Subordinate Relations: Gender Differences in the Perception of Angry Displays. Sex Roles 26: Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I Human Ethology. New York: Aldine de Gruyter Dominance, Submission, and Love: Sexual Pathologies from the Perspective of Ethology. In Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, J. R. Feierman, ed. Pp New York: Springer-Verlag. Grammer, K Signale der Liebe. Die biologischen Gesetze der Partnerschaft. München: Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag Sex and Gender in Advertisements: Indoctrination and Exploitation. In Ethnic Conflict and Indoctrination: Altruism and Identity in Evolutionary Perspective, I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt and F. K. Salter, eds. Pp New York and Oxford: Berghahn. Grammer, K., and L. Renninger 2004 Disco Clothing, Female Sexual Motivation, and Relationship Status: Is She Dressed to Impress? Journal of Sex Resarch 41(1): Halberstadt, A. G., and M. B. Saitta 1987 Gender, Nonverbal Behavior and Perceived Dominance: A Test of the Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53: Maccoby, E. E., and C. N. Jacklin 1980 Sex Differences in Aggression: A Rejoinder and Reprise. Child Development 51: Mehrabian, A Nonverbal Communication. New York: Aldine-Atherton. Moore, M. M Nonverbal Courtship Patterns in Women. Ethology and Sociobiology 6: Sackett, G. P., ed Observing Behavior, Vol. II. Data Collection and Analysis Methods. Baltimore: University Park Press. Sackett, G. P The Lag Sequential Analysis of Contingency and Cyclicity in Behavioral Interaction Research. In Handbook of Infant Development, J. D. Osofsky, ed. Pp New York: Wiley Salter, F. K Emotions in Command: A Naturalistic Study of Institutional Dominance. Oxford: Oxford University Press Science Publications.