Content uploaded by Robert Körner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert Körner on Aug 09, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
P
Poses and Postures as Status
Displays
Robert Körner and Astrid Schütz
Department of Psychology, University of
Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany
Synonyms
Power posing, upright postures, expansive body
positions, dominance poses, upright postures,
nonverbal display of status
Definitions
Body positions can be differently related to hier-
archy variables. Power poses (abbr. “poses”) are
the nonverbal expression of dominance. Upright
body postures (abbr. “postures”) are the nonverbal
expression of prestige.
Introduction
As ancient philosophers claimed and as recent
research has shown, the body influences the
mind just as the mind influences the body
(Niedenthal et al., 2005). On the basis of this
insight, researchers have tried to learn how strong
this connection is and have conducted experi-
ments in which participants were instructed to
hold certain body positions. Consequently, phys-
iological data were recorded, participants were
asked how they felt, and their behavior was
observed. This research dates back to the mid-
twentieth century but received massive attention
when Carney et al. (2010) introduced their studies
on the effects of power poses: They reported that
the adoption of open and expansive body posi-
tions for 1–2 min increased not only people’s
feelings of power but also their testosterone levels
and their willingness to take risks. They also
reported that these positions decreased the stress
hormone cortisol. Many studies on this topic
followed, and intriguing results were shared with
academia and the public. Many people hoped that
power posing would offer a way to improve peo-
ple’s lives.
However, when studies that could not replicate
the effects began to be published in 2015 and later,
a heated debate ensued concerning the question of
whether the “power posing”effect was real (e.g.,
Cesario & Johnson, 2017). Moreover, researchers
pointed to the presence of publication bias and
questionable research practices in this area of
research, and the first author of the seminal study
admitted to mistakes and distanced herself from
the research. Until recently, an exhaustive analysis
of the evidential value of the literature has been
missing, and the field has been separated by advo-
cates on the one hand and skeptics of the effects of
body positions on the other.
Another problem with the initial research on
body positions was that different kinds of bodily
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
T. K. Shackelford, V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3870-1
manipulations were not distinguished. However,
theoretical reasoning suggests that upright pos-
tures and expansive poses should be differentiated
because they may have different origins, mean-
ings, and effects (see Körner & Schütz, 2020).
When referring to the dominance-prestige frame-
work (Cheng & Tracy, 2014; Henrich & Gil-
White, 2001), it can be argued that expansive
poses reflect dominance and upright postures
reflect prestige.
Dominance and Prestige in Body
Positions
Body positions have been distinguished with
respect to their relationships to two aspects of
status: dominance and prestige (Körner & Schütz,
2020). Dominance relies on the induction of fear
through the use of force, coercion, aggression, and
intimidation in an attempt to attain status (Henrich
& Gil-White, 2001). In self- and peer-reports,
dominance has been found to be associated with
assertiveness, narcissism, hubristic pride, low
agreeableness, and low prosociality. By contrast,
prestige is status that is attributed on the basis of
perceived skills, knowledge, and expertise.
According to self- and peer reports, typical corre-
lates of prestige are communion, agreeableness,
authentic pride, and conscientiousness (Cheng
et al., 2010). Thus, dominance and prestige can
be conceived of as different strategies that can be
used to achieve status –and such status provides
power that allows for influence and control
(Cheng & Tracy, 2014).
On the nonverbal level, status is associated
with nonverbal expansion (Blaker & van Vugt,
2014). However, different forms of expansiveness
can be distinguished: (a) Power poses are charac-
terized by taking up space by assuming extremely
expansive positions on a horizontal level, for
example, opening ones arms or spreading one’s
legs. In the original study on power posing, par-
ticipants stood in front of a desk with their hands
wide on a table, or they sat in a chair with their feet
on a table, head tilted up, and hands folded behind
their head (Carney et al., 2010). Low power poses
are characterized by contraction, for example, by
having one’s arms slung around one’s torso and
crossing one’s lower legs. (b) Upright postures are
characterized by vertical expansion. Typical posi-
tions are sitting or standing erect with the chest out
and a straight spine. The contrasting positions are
slumped postures in which the back and shoulders
are bent forward (e.g., Briñol et al., 2009). In
experimental research on body positions, partici-
pants are typically instructed to engage in one of
these positions for 1–5 min, and various outcomes
are subsequently assessed (Carney et al., 2015;
Körner & Schütz, 2020).
Apparently, the associations between body
positions and the respective concepts of status
are well grounded in common knowledge. The
nonverbal features that formed the blueprint of
power poses were deduced from reports of partic-
ipants who had been asked which nonverbal fea-
tures are associated with dominance (Carney
et al., 2005). By contrast, when participants gen-
erated prestige-related words, they changed their
body along a vertical axis rather than a horizontal
one (Oosterwijk et al., 2009), thus resembling the
change from a slumped to an upright posture. For
these reasons, in recent research, power poses
have been described as nonverbal expressions of
dominance (abbr. “poses”), and upright postures
have been described as nonverbal expressions of
prestige (abbr. “postures”; Körner & Schütz,
2020; see also Witkower et al., 2020).
Empirical research has supported this distinc-
tion. Extreme forms of horizontal expansiveness
and high-intensity nonverbal expressions –as can
be seen in so-called power poses –are considered
typical of dominance (Witkower et al., 2020).
More subtle forms of expansiveness (e.g., subtle
chest expansion) and upright body postures have
been linked to prestige (Körner & Schütz, 2020;
Witkower et al., 2020). From a functionalist per-
spective, it makes sense to describe extreme body
expansiveness as a display of dominance because
dominance is aimed at intimidating opponents.
Only if the formidability of one’s body –with
respect to height and width/muscularity –can
convey toughness and aggression can dominance
be used to achieve status (Witkower et al., 2020).
By contrast, individuals who are characterized by
prestige typically try to avoid instilling fear in
2 Poses and Postures as Status Displays
others because this may be detrimental to their
positive reputation (Körner et al., 2022a). Still,
they strive to gain respect. Thus, an erect but not
extremely expansive body position may serve this
goal well (Körner & Schütz, 2020). In line with
this reasoning, researchers found height to be
associated with both dominance and prestige but
muscularity to be associated with dominance only
(Blaker & van Vugt, 2014).
Findings from Research on Poses and
Postures
Credibility in findings from studies on poses and
postures has suffered in recent years due to failed
replication attempts (e.g., Cesario & Johnson,
2017). However, in a recent meta-analysis that
included all English- and German-speaking stud-
ies in the field (both published and unpublished), a
non-trivial effect of adopting body positions was
found (g¼0.35; Körner et al., 2022b). Below we
summarize findings on the effects of body posi-
tions with regard to different outcomes.
Self-Reports. Poses have been reliably linked to
self-report measures, such as feelings of power,
dominance, being in charge, and being in control
(Gronau et al., 2017; Körner & Schütz, 2020).
Further, poses have repeatedly been found to
increase self-esteem and confidence (e.g., Körner
et al., 2021), and this effect has even been
observed in 10-year-old children (Körner et al.,
2020). Moreover, poses have been reported to
increase confirmatory information processing
and lead to preferring a moving ego perspective
instead of a moving time perspective (e.g., Duffy
& Feist, 2016). Upright postures (compared with
slumped postures) have also shown reliable
effects on self-report measures, such as an
increase in the experience of positive emotions
and a decrease in the experience of negative emo-
tions (e.g., Miragall et al., 2020; Nair et al., 2014).
Further, participants reported a higher perceived
leadership ability after engaging in upright pos-
tures compared with participants who engaged in
slumped postures (Arnette & Pettijohn II, 2012).
These findings are in line with meta-analytical
evidence that both poses and postures show a
small- to medium-sized effect on self-reported
variables (i.e., feelings, thoughts, self-
evaluations; Körner et al., 2022b).
Behavior. The evidential value with behavioral
outcomes is rather mixed. Poses have been linked
to antisocial behavior, which is in line with the
interpretation of poses as dominance (Yap et al.,
2013). Postures as nonverbal expression of pres-
tige have often been linked to task persistence
(Riskind & Gotay, 1982). Yet, poses show hardly
any effect on risk-taking measures and negotiation
success (e.g., Cesario & Johnson, 2017). In a
recent meta-analytical review both types of body
positions have a small to medium effect. How-
ever, the evidence is unstable as publication bias
and/or questionable research practices seem to
affect the findings (Körner et al., 2022b).
Physiology. Findings on physiological changes
through posing initially sparked strong research
interest (Carney et al., 2010). Researchers who are
interested in poses have often studied testosterone
and cortisol, but replication studies and meta-
analyses have both supported the conclusion that
there is no effect. In studies with posture interven-
tions, cardiovascular parameters have often been
studied, but the overall evidence of physiological
outcomes has likewise been non-significant and
close to zero (Körner et al., 2022b). Apparently,
engaging in certain body positions for a short
period of time does not have the potential to
change one’s hormonal or cardiovascular
responses.
To sum up, whether there are reliable effects of
body positions on the actor depends on the kind of
outcomes that are being studied. The findings on
self-report variables have been stable and inde-
pendent of age, gender, cultural background
(individualistic vs. collectivistic), and kind of
sample (student vs. non-student; see Körner
et al., 2022b). Still, other aspects of the study
design matter, as elaborated below.
Demand Characteristics. Demand characteris-
tics (i.e., when participants’behaviors are in line
Poses and Postures as Status Displays 3
with the researchers’goal and hypotheses) have
often been suggested to be a factor in the effects of
body positions. For example, a meta-analysis on
six preregistered experiments found strong evi-
dence of an effect of body positions on feelings
of power, but when participants who were familiar
with power posing were excluded, the overall
effect got smaller (Gronau et al., 2017). This find-
ing suggests that demand effects partially explain
the effect. In a more recent meta-analytical review
that included 128 independent studies, this finding
was supported: Studies that did not use cover
stories and used within-subjects designs showed
significantly larger effects than studies that used
cover stories and between-subject designs –as the
latter studies avoided the possibility that partici-
pants might guess the purpose of the study
(Körner et al., 2022b). To sum up, demand effects
could explain the results to some extent, but the
overall effects of body positions were still non-
trivial in size when researchers prevented demand
characteristics from affecting the results.
Control Groups. Finally, research on poses and
postures has typically contrasted two experimen-
tal groups. For example, a behavioral outcome
from participants who engaged in a high-power
pose was compared with the same behavioral
outcome from participants who engaged in a
low-power pose (e.g., Yap et al., 2013). Yet, this
design does not allow conclusions to be drawn
about which experimental group drives the effect:
Does engaging in power poses or upright postures
change an individual’s thoughts and feelings, or
does engaging in low-power poses or slumped
postures produce these effects? This question
remains open because so far only a limited num-
ber of studies have included control groups
(Körner et al., 2022b). Future research should
include neutral positions to shed more light on
the issue.
Routes Through Which Body Positions
Can Affect the Actor
There are several accounts that explain how body
positions unfold their effects on the actor (e.g.,
grounded cognition or perceptual metaphor
perspectives; Niedenthal et al., 2005). From an
evolutionary psychological perspective, the
dominance-prestige account seems most suitable
for including various theories (particularly learn-
ing theories, self-perception theory, and self-
validation theory) that work together to explain
the underlying processes (see Körner et al.,
2022b).
Evolutionary theories link specific physical
characteristics to dominance and prestige. For
example, in the general population, height is typ-
ically considered a cue for leadership ability
(Blaker & van Vugt, 2014). This association
may be strengthened over the life course through
learning experiences: Specific body positions
become linked to certain states because people
see them as corresponding with a certain aim
(e.g., learning forward to reach something desir-
able symbolizes approach behavior; a slouched
body position that a person may take in a sad
mood becomes associated with feeling
depressed). Thus, certain body positions become
indicators of a person’s specific mental state, cer-
tain feelings, and past behavior. Through self-
perception, people may draw conclusions about
their inner states on the basis of their body posi-
tion. Beyond self-perception, observer perception
may strengthen the link: Body positions in every-
day life also serve as indicators of an individual’s
status, and people observe others and link specific
nonverbal behaviors with their status.
Body expansiveness, muscularity, and height
are associated with formidability and can there-
fore be linked to dominance. Not only does this
pattern apply in the animal kingdom where
researchers have often observed that size comes
along with dominance (e.g., for research on apes,
see de Waal, 1998), but it also applies to humans.
For example, children may observe that bullies are
big and that they intimidate victims physically.
These children may consequently attribute domi-
nance to tall and broad individuals. By contrast,
children typically perceive adults as competent
and associate height with competence and pres-
tige. This trend is true for adults, too. For example,
tall men can be found in managerial positions
more often than short men (Lindqvist, 2012),
4 Poses and Postures as Status Displays
and thus, observers may link prestigious positions
with height.
Theorists in embodied cognition research have
proposed that the mental is grounded in sensori-
motor modalities and capacities (e.g., body posi-
tions; Niedenthal et al., 2005). If one entity is
activated, the other follows. This form of feedback
means that a dominant body position can activate
dominance-related concepts in the actor’s mind.
People who engage in a dominant pose will per-
ceive themselves as dominant (see self-perception
theory; Bem, 1967) because they have learned to
attribute expansiveness to dominance. To affect
other mental processes and behavior, further steps
are necessary –the idea of being dominant needs
to be validated (cf. self-validation theory; Briñol
& Petty, 2009). Either this idea is liked (status-
related concept are typically considered desirable;
affective validation) or it may be considered cor-
rect (cognitive validation). The same reasoning
applies to prestige and upright postures. People
in an upright posture may attribute respect and
competence to themselves and may like these
proxies of prestige or consider the attributions to
be correct; consequently, they may behave like
someone who possesses prestige –and a self-
fulfilling prophecy may evolve. Thus, through
self-perception and self-validation processes, the
person may ultimately feel, think, and behave in
line with the concepts that are associated with the
body position (dominance or prestige).
Conclusion
Power poses can be understood as nonverbal
expressions of dominance because of their
extreme body expansiveness. In several studies,
they have been reliably linked to feelings of power
and to self-esteem and might affect specific
behaviors. Upright postures are more subtle
aspects of expansiveness and refer to vertical
expansion. They can be understood as nonverbal
expressions of prestige. Adopting upright pos-
tures can make individuals experience more pos-
itive emotions and be more task-persistent. Yet,
behavioral findings have to be considered with
care and must be replicated in future research.
Finally, neither type of body position has robust
effects on physiological variables. With respect to
factors that influence the effects of body positions,
demand characteristics might partially explain the
results, but when controlling for such effects, the
effects may still be non-trivial in size. Still, it is not
yet clear whether power poses/upright postures
increase such variables or whether low-power
poses/slumped postures have decreasing effects –
and thus, studies with neutral control conditions
are needed. Further, there are several theoretical
accounts of how body positions may unfold their
effects on the actor –self-perception and self-
validation processes are well-suited for explaining
how dominance or prestige is activated through
certain body positions.
Cross-References
▶Adaptations for Navigating Social Hierarchies
▶Body Posture
▶Dominance in Humans
▶Height and Dominance
▶Indicators and Correlates of Status and
Dominance
▶Signals of Body Size
References
Arnette, S. L., & Pettijohn, T. F., II. (2012). The effects of
posture on self-perceived leadership. International
Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(14), 8–13.
Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative inter-
pretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psycho-
logical Review, 74(3), 183–200.
Blaker, N. M., & van Vugt, M. (2014). The status-size
hypothesis: How cues of physical size and social status
influence each other. In J. T. Cheng, J. L. Tracy, &
C. Anderson (Eds.), The psychology of social status
(pp. 119–137). Springer.
Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2009). Persuasion: Insights from
the self-validation hypothesis. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.
41, pp. 69–118). Academic Press.
Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., & Wagner, B. (2009). Body posture
effects on self-evaluation: A self-validation approach.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(6),
1053–1064.
Poses and Postures as Status Displays 5
Carney, D. R., Hall, J. A., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Beliefs
about the nonverbal expression of social power. Jour-
nal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29(2), 105–123.
Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Yap, A. J. (2010). Power
posing brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine
levels and risk tolerance. Psychological Science, 21,
1363–1369.
Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Yap, A. J. (2015). Review
and summary of research on the embodied effects of
expansive (vs. contractive) nonverbal displays. Psy-
chological Science, 26, 657–663.
Cesario, J., & Johnson, D. J. (2017). Power Poseur: Bodily
expansiveness does not matter in dyad-ic interactions.
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(7),
781–789.
Cheng, J. T., & Tracy, J. L. (2014). Toward a unified
science of hierarchy: Dominance and prestige are two
fundamental pathways to human social rank. In J. T.
Cheng, J. L. Tracy, & C. Anderson (Eds.), The psychol-
ogy of social status (pp. 3–27). Springer.
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride,
personality, and the evolutionary foundations of
human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior,
31(5), 334–347.
de Waal, F. (1998). Chimpanzee politics: Power and sex
among apes. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Duffy, S. E., & Feist, M. I. (2016). Power in time: The
influence of power posing on metaphoric perspectives
on time. Language and Cognition, 9(4), 637–647.
Gronau, Q. F., Van Erp, S., Heck, D. W., Cesario, J., Jonas,
K. J., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2017). A Bayesian model-
averaged meta-analysis of the power pose effect with
informed and de-fault priors: The case of felt power.
Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 2,
123–138.
Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of
prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism
for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(3), 165–196.
Körner, R., & Schütz, A. (2020). Dominance or prestige:
A review of the effects of power poses and other body
postures. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,
14(8), Article e12559.
Körner, R., Köhler, H., & Schütz, A. (2020). Powerful and
confident children through expansive body postures?
A preregistered study of fourth graders. School Psy-
chology International, 41(4), 315–330.
Körner, R., Petersen, L.-E., & Schütz, A. (2021). Do
expansive or contractive body postures affect feelings
of self-worth? High power poses impact state self-
esteem. Current Psychology, 40(8), 4112–4124.
Körner, R., Overbeck, J. R., Körner, E., & Schütz,
A. (2022a). How the linguistic styles of Donald
Trump and Joe Biden reflect different forms of power.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology. Advance
online publication.
Körner, R., Röseler, L., Schütz, A., & Bushman, B. J.
(2022b). Dominance and prestige: Meta-analytic
review of experimentally induced body position effects
on behavioral, self-report, and physiological dependent
variables. Psychological Bulletin. Advance online
publication.
Lindqvist, E. (2012). Height and leadership. Review of
Economics and Statistics, 94(4), 1191–1196.
Miragall, M., Borrego, A., Cebolla, A., Etchemendy, E.,
Navarro-Siurana, J., Llorens, R., ... Baños, R. M.
(2020). Effect of an upright (vs. stooped) posture on
interpretation bias, imagery, and emotions. Journal of
Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 68,
Article 101560.
Nair, S., Sagar, M., Sollers, J., Consedine, N., &
Broadbent, E. (2014). Do slumped and upright postures
affect stress responses? A randomized trial. Health
Psychology, 34, 632–641.
Niedenthal, P. M., Barsalou, L. W., Winkielman, P.,
Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2005). Embodiment in
attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 9(3), 184–211.
Oosterwijk, S., Rotteveel, M., Fischer, A. H., & Hess,
U. (2009). Embodied emotion concepts: How generat-
ing words about pride and disappointment influences
posture. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(3),
457–466.
Riskind, J. H., & Gotay, C. C. (1982). Physical posture:
Could it have regulatory or feedback effects on moti-
vation and emotion? Motivation and Emotion, 6(3),
273–298.
Witkower, Z., Tracy, J. L., Cheng, J. T., & Henrich,
J. (2020). Two signals of social rank: Prestige and
dominance are associated with distinct nonverbal dis-
plays. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
118 (1), 89–129.
Yap, A. J., Wazlawek, A. S., Lucas, B. J., Cuddy, A. J. C.,
& Carney, D. R. (2013). The ergonomics of dishonesty:
The effect of incidental posture on stealing, cheating,
and traffic violations. Psychological Science, 24(11),
2281–2289.
6 Poses and Postures as Status Displays