Sex differences in affective and physiological responses to relationship orientations

Abstract

This study examined whether men's and women's different orientations to relationships would be apparent in their reactions to power and linking themes. In addition, this study explored the possibility that communal and agentic individuals, as identified through Spence and Helmreich's (1978) Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) might also respond differently to relationship themes. Ninety (45 male and 45 female) introductory psychology students viewed slides that portrayed caring and nurturant relationships among people, power and dominant relationships, or relationships involving submission, power, and isolation. During the slide presentation, physiological measures of arousal (i.e., electrodermal activity and heart rate) and facial electromyographic activity (i.e., zygomaticus major, corrugator supercilli, and orbicularis oris muscle activation) were collected. Subjects also rated their affective reactions. In addition, subjects completed self esteem and other measures prior to and subsequent to viewing the slides. It was expected that women and communal individuals identified through scores on the PAQ would display heightened arousal, increased electromyographic activity in zygomaticus major muscle region (i.e., smiling), and would report enhanced good feelings and increased self-esteem to slides depicting caring relationships. It was expected that men and agentic individuals identified through scores on the PAQ would demonstrate these responses to slides depicting power relationships. Although manipulation checks revealed that each of the sets of slides successfully depicted the appropriate relationship theme, the results did not support predictions. The only significant effect was obtained in the measure of heart rate activity, in that relative to activity displayed when subjects viewed slides depicting neutral relationships, mens heart rates increased and womens'heart rates decreased when they viewed stimulus slides depicting submission/power/isolation. The discussion considers possible reasons as to why the current study was not more fruitful.