We examined the relative influence of sex, sex role orientation, structural power, and interpersonal dependence on the use of influence tactics in 235 naturally occurring same-sex and cross-sex intimate relationships. Six dimensions of influence tactics were identified: manipulation, supplication, bullying, autocracy, disengagement, and bargaining. We found several patterns of the effect of interpersonal power on influence tactics. First, positions of weakness were found to increase the use of supplication and manipulation, both "weak" strategies. We also found that positions of strength increase somewhat the likelihood of bullying and the use of autocratic tactics, both "strong" strategies. Patterns of bargaining and the use of disengagement are more complex and vary across couple types. Both sex and sex role orientation have consistent effects on influence dynamics, but these effects are limited primarily to the use of weak tactics.

In recent years there has been a growing research interest in sex differences in speech (e.g., Thorne and Henley, 1975; Thorne et al., 1983). Conversational behavior, it was once argued, can be viewed as having a "male dialect" and a "female dialect" (Kramer, 1974). More recent commentators feel that such a conceptualization exaggerates and at the same time oversimplifies the differences between men's and women's speech (Thorne et al., 1983: 14). However, neither these authors, nor any others, deny that there are significant sex differences in verbal interaction.As various sex differences were observed, some authors began to look at possible reasons for their existence and at their implications. Notably, some researchers (cf. Fishman, 1978; *Direct all correspondence to: Peter Kollock, Philip Blumstein, and Pepper Schwartz, Department of Sociology, DK-40, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.This research was supported in part by NSF grant SES-7617497 and a research assistantship to the first author from the Graduate School of the University of Washington. A draft of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Antonio, 1984.The authors are grateful to these colleagues for comments on an earlier draft of this paper: Nancy Durbin, Mary Rogers Gillmore, Laurie Russell Hatch, Judith A. Howard, Mary Savage Leber, Anne Martin, Barbara Risman, Donald Stull and Toshio Yamagishi. We would also like to thank Sandra Hayashi for her work in coding the conversations. Thorne and Henley, 1975) felt that these differences were tied not solely to sex, but to power as well. In looking, for example, at differences in the amount of time spent talking, at terms of address, and at intenuption patterns, the implication was that observed sex differences in language mirror the overall difference in power between men and women, and that the way in which people communicate reflects and reinforces the hierarchical relationships that exist around them.As intriguing or intuitively appealing as these questions may be, there have been few studies to test empirically what relationship power and sex have to the observed differences in men's and women's speech.

In this article, we extend the research by Buss and Barnes (1986) on preferences in human mate selection. Buss and Barnes explored human mate preferences by identifying major dimensions of preferences, sex differences in selection preferences, and the relations between mate preferences and characteristics of obtained partners. To examine these questions, Buss and Barnes studied two heterosexual samples. In discussing their findings, they specified two general theoretical orientations to understanding human mate preferences, the first based on social factors and the second based on principles of evolutionary biology. The relative adequacy of these two perspectives was not evaluated because as Buss and Barnes noted, the two sets of hypotheses are not inherently incompatible. In this extension of their research, we examine mate preferences in samples of both heterosexual and homosexual couples, using variation in sexual orientation to evaluate further the adequacy of social and evolutionary theories in explaining human mate preferences. Although some aspects of partner preferences are consistent with both theoretical orientations, we demonstrate that other patterns are explained more adequately by a social perspective.

This paper presents an overview of our interview study with 156 men and women having a history of more than incidental sexual experience with both men and women. Data from other studies that point to the existence of bisexuality are reviewed and suggestions are made about why bisexuality has not been incorporated into scientific thinking about sexuality. Our study is described and some of the findings are presented to address the following questions: How does bisexuality fit into the erotic careers of respondents? What factors contribute to the adoption of bisexual self‐identification? What circumstances are conducive to the development of bisexuality in individuals? What are the differences between the processes of becoming a bisexual female and becoming a bisexual male?

No abstract