Full text: Ownership as interpersonal dominance

meanings. He argued for two concepts of dominance: 1) domination based on the forceful 
imposition of will and 2) integration based on cooperative leadership. 
in 1981, Ray objected anew that dominance was being confounded with other concepts. 
He argued that authoritarianism (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950) 
represents socially disapproved aggressive dominance, that assertiveness (Lorr & Moore, 1980) 
represents socially approved non-aggressive dominance, and that dominance as Coto! 
(Jackson, 1967/1984) is neutral to social approval or disapproval. Most recently, Van de Sande 
(1982) reviewed 17 scales of dominance and found high convergent validity (r =.60) but different 
patterns of correlation, and concluded that the scales were measuring different constructs. 
Psychologists, including personality theorists, have typically considered dominance to be 
a trait or construct referent to the individual. However, it is important to be aware that 
dominance has social explanations as well, which may become confounded with personality 
trait explanations. For example, Gough, McClosky and Meehl (1951) developed a scale for 
dominance in which the instructions ran to five paragraphs defining dominance as assertive 
leadership, contrasting it to being submissive and to being domineering, and asking the 
subjects not to confuse it with their appreciation of social leadership or with the prestige, power 
and control that accrues to those in certain social positions. 
Simmel (1971) argued that dominance is not based just on personal characteristics, but 
on the circumstances of office and on socially tendered prestige. He was particularly 
concerned that personality theorists not overlook the role of the subordinate: 
Relationships of superordination and subordination play an immense role in social life. It 
is therefore of the utmost importance for its analysis to clarify the spontaneity and 
co-efficiency of the subordinate subject and thus to correct their minimization by 
superficial notions about them. (Simmel, 1971, p. 98) 
Arguments that dominance is a reciprocal relationship have been formalized by Emerson 
(1962) in his analysis of equations representing A’s power over B (Pab) as necessarily equal to 
B’s dependence on A (Dba). Power relations are balanced if Pab = Dba = Dab = Pba = Pab. 
Balance does not neutralize power relationships. Dominance occurs if there is imbalance, as 
when Pab = Dba > Dab = Pba < Pab. Emerson argued that balance can be achieved by B's 
withdrawal, by B extending the power network for alternate resources to attain goals blocked 
by A, by B controlling A’s access to status, or by B forming a coalition with others to overpower 
A. This analysis of power relations was substantiated by Snowdon’s (1983) review of animal 
literature on dominance relationships, including the formation of coalitions, the liabilities of

Note to user

Dear user,

In response to current developments in the web technology used by the Goobi viewer, the software no longer supports your browser.

Please use one of the following browsers to display this page correctly.

Thank you.