I just read an interesting study published in the Journal of Nonverbal Behavior by Sally D Farely that presents experimental evidence that conversation interrupters are perceived as possessing higher status than the interrupted. Otherwise, if you interrupt somebody in conversation you will decrease their status and increase your own. Farely notes that this also results in the interrupted person liking the interpreter less and therefore there is a cost to pay for the status acquired. Farely’s research is published in volume 32, number 4 of the December, 2008 edition of the Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. This research is consistent with other research, which suggests status is attained by imposing oneself and dominating others.

What interests me is the implication that manners are for the weak. However, etiquette is a status symbol for the cultural and political elite. Manners in this context would indicate a sort of ascribed status whereas the dominant personality is an actualized status. My own thesis is that such ascribed status will dominate over the merely imposing personality when their (the ‘proper’ person) authority is explicitly asserted. However, when we talk about etiquette in behavior we are talking about the social fabric of society and the semiotics of cognition, so this is complex issue. At any rate, I think it would be interesting to conduct similar research that test status perceptions in association with manners and cultured behavior in contrast with the merely imposing.

Note: Farely does suggest that leaders who have perceived “legitimacy” will be liked more or tolerated in their interruptions than a less respected leader who will be disliked more. Farely does not define legitimacy for us and my own interest in this is in the perception of the cultured or mannered person…