Page 49 - 6688

49
dyad as well as in a larger group. Allowing for the uniqueness of each, we can still make some
predictions about how the two members of a dyad will interact if we know something about the
strength of their individual needs for affiliation and dominance. Janet has a high need for
dominance but a low need for affiliation, so we expect her to be analytic, to make many
judgments, to be resistant. If Mark has a low need for dominance but a high need for affiliation,
we expect him to acquiesce much of the time, to cooperate with Janet, and so on. But if, like
Janet, Mark has a high need for dominance, there is likely to be conflict between them, or as
we suggested in our discussion of norms, the two will have to work out some satisfactory
agreements regulating their behavior—at least for a time. To put it in other terms, they
themselves will have to develop rules for their relationship.
Taking into account the importance of dominance, Phillips and Wood (1983) define three
relationship structures. Complementary structures are based on differences between the
partners; one is dominant and the other submissive. Symmetrical structures are based on
similarities, as when both partners are dominant or both are submissive. On the other hand,
parallel structures are based on some combination of complementary and symmetrical
interactions
Of the three, the favored relationship structure is the parallel one (Harrington, 1984). This
is the most flexible structure and probably most common because it enables us to adapt most
easily to the demands of new situations. The most rejected relationship is one in which the
female is dominant.

4. Status
Whether we like to acknowledge it or not, status, the position of an individual in relation to
another or others, has at least some relationship to the issue of establishing control within a
dyad. Potter has written at length about a familiar strategy for achieving higher status in human
relationships; he calls it "one-upmanship." No doubt the popularity of his tongue-in-cheek
descriptions of how to gain the upper hand stems from their authenticity. In one guise or
another, the one-upper is known to all. He or she is always busier than you are, goes to more
expensive places, knows more important people, and—most telling of all— is a chronic name
dropper.
Potter comes through with one-upmanship techniques for all of us: doctor and patient,
businessperson, artist, sport enthusiast, wine lover. And he has not forgotten the college
student. If you want to be one up before exams have started or after they are over, you might
give either of two impressions: that you spend all your time studying or that you never open a
book. For example, "to Harvard," the second strategy, is "to seem, even when the examination
is only two days off, to be totally indifferent to the impending crisis, and be seen walking calmly
and naturally about, out of doors, enjoying the scenery and taking deep breaths of air. Our
efforts to outdo other people clearly take place on both verbal and nonverbal levels.
Status has marked effects on the form of all communication, no matter how unstructured.
If two people are unequal in status, there is a good chance that the one with higher status will
control the topics of conversation as well as the length of the discussion. Higher status may
even enable that person to avoid a discussion entirely.
Perceptions of status are immediately reflected in greetings as well as in forms of
address. "Hi" may be permissible for some encounters; "Hello" or "Good morning" may be
more appropriate for others. The higher-status person is often addressed by title and last name
("Good morning, Dr. Jones"), and the lower-status person by first name or even a briefer
version of that name ("Hi, Mike"). One sociologist observes that greetings may also affirm a