In sync
Stepping forward together: Could walking facilitate interpersonal conflict resolution?
Christine Webb, Maya Rossignac-Milon & Tory Higgins
American Psychologist, May-June 2017, Pages 374-385
Abstract:
Walking has myriad benefits for the mind, most of which have traditionally been explored and explained at the individual level of analysis. Much less empirical work has examined how walking with a partner might benefit social processes. One such process is conflict resolution — a field of psychology in which movement is inherent not only in recent theory and research, but also in colloquial language (e.g., “moving on”). In this article, we unify work from various fields pointing to the idea that walking together can facilitate both the intra- and interpersonal pathways to conflict resolution. Intrapersonally, walking supports various psychological mechanisms for reconciliation, including creativity, locomotion motivation, and embodied notions of forward progress. Both alone and in combination with its effects on mood and stress, walking can encourage individual mindsets conducive to resolving conflict (e.g., divergent thinking). Interpersonally, walking can allow partners to reap the cognitive, affective, and behavioral advantages of synchronous movement, such as increased positive rapport, empathy, and prosociality. Walking partners naturally adopt cooperative (as opposed to competitive) postural stances, experience shared attention, and can benefit from discussions in novel environments. Overall, despite its prevalence in conflict resolution theory, little is known about how movement influences conflict resolution practice. Such knowledge has direct implications for a range of psychological questions and approaches within negotiation and alternative mediation techniques, clinical settings, and the study of close relationships.
Good Girl, Bad Boy? Evidence Consistent with Collusion in Professional Tennis
Michael Jetter & Jay Walker
Southern Economic Journal, forthcoming
Abstract:
We identify professional tennis matches where one player competes for extraordinarily high payoffs while their opposition does not. Players “on the bubble” of direct qualification to upcoming Grand Slam events face substantially higher stakes than opponents, which presents an opportunity for collusion. Our findings produce evidence that is consistent with the hypothesis of unethical behavior taking place on the men's tour, as bubble players are 5.1 percentage points more likely to beat better ranked opponents than in comparable nonbubble matches. However, no such evidence emerges when analyzing women's tennis. We find additional support for the hypothesis of match-fixing activities on the men's tour from analyzing the occurrence of tie-breaks and the fact that our results become stronger once monetary incentives were increased after the 2013 season. Finally, the betting market does not predict this phenomenon, further confirming our suspicion of irregular activities.
Profit Versus Prejudice: Harnessing Self-Interest to Reduce In-Group Bias
Michael Stagnaro, Yarrow Dunham & David Rand
Social Psychological and Personality Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
We examine the possibility that self-interest, typically thought to undermine social welfare, might reduce in-group bias. We compared the dictator game (DG), where participants unilaterally divide money between themselves and a recipient, and the ultimatum game (UG), where the recipient can reject these offers. Unlike the DG, there is a self-interested motive for UG giving: If participants expect the rejection of unfair offers, they have a monetary incentive to be fair even to out-group members. Thus, we predicted substantial bias in the DG but little bias in the UG. We tested this hypothesis in two studies (N = 3,546) employing a 2 (in-group/out-group, based on abortion position) × 2 (DG/UG) design. We observed the predicted significant group by game interaction, such that the substantial in-group favoritism observed in the DG was almost entirely eliminated in the UG: Giving the recipient bargaining power reduced the premium offered to in-group members by 77.5%.
Motivation gains on divisible conjunctive group tasks
James Larson, Joseph Bihary & Amanda Egan
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, forthcoming
Abstract:
Two studies examined the effort that participants expended on a challenging physical persistence activity when that activity was a critical part of a divisible conjunctive task performed by two people working as a team compared to when it was structured as an individual task performed by one person working alone. It was found that participants put greater effort into that activity when they worked as part of a team task compared to when they worked alone — a motivation gain when working in groups. This gain occurred despite the absence of any apparent task-related ability differences among participants, and is most parsimoniously explained by the greater indispensability associated with working on a critical element of a divisible conjunctive group task. The implications of these results for the occurrence of motivation gains on other types of tasks and in real-world work settings are discussed.
Who Represents Our Group? The Effects of Prototype Content on Perceived Status Dispersion and Social Undermining
Hee Young Kim & Batia Wiesenfeld
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, June 2017, Pages 814-827
Abstract:
Group identity may be embodied in more typical or extreme member attributes. The present research suggests that individuals’ perceptions of the group identity prototype predict their beliefs about the status hierarchy and, in turn, the prevalence of social undermining behavior. Across four studies using both experimental and field data, we find that perceiving that the group prototype is focused on the ideal rather than the central tendency is associated with greater levels of perceived status dispersion and social undermining, and that perceived status dispersion mediates the relationship between members’ perception of the group prototype and social undermining behavior. We also find that social context — specifically, salient group achievement goals elicited by intergroup competition and common ingroup identity — attenuates the effect of ideal prototypes on perceived social undermining. Theoretical implications for the social identity, status, and social undermining literatures are discussed.
The Power of Projection for Powerless and Powerful People: Effect of Power on Social Projection Is Moderated by Dimension of Judgment
Claudia Toma et al.
Social Psychological and Personality Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
Past social projection research has mainly focused on target characteristics as a moderator of projective effects. The current research considers the power of the perceiver and how it affects projection of competence and warmth. In three studies, participants first rated themselves on a list of traits/preferences, then performed a power manipulation task, and, finally, rated a target person on the same list. Studies 1 and 2 reveal that the effect of power on social projection is moderated by dimension of judgment: high-power/low-power participants project more on competence/warmth than low-power/high-power participants. A meta-analysis conducted on Studies 1, 2, 3, and two additional studies confirmed those results. Study 3 additionally shows that high power increases the salience of competence, whereas low power increases the salience of warmth. Implications for both the power and the social perception literatures are discussed.
Audiovisual Integration in Social Evaluation
Mila Mileva et al.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, forthcoming
Abstract:
Our social evaluation of other people is influenced by their faces and their voices. However, rather little is known about how these channels combine in forming “first impressions.” Over 5 experiments, we investigate the relative contributions of facial and vocal information for social judgments: dominance and trustworthiness. The experiments manipulate each of these sources of information within-person, combining faces and voices giving rise to different social attributions. We report that vocal pitch is a reliable source of information for judgments of dominance (Study 1), but not trustworthiness (Study 4). Faces and voices make reliable, but independent, contributions to social evaluation. However, voices have the larger influence in judgments of dominance (Study 2), whereas faces have the larger influence in judgments of trustworthiness (Study 5). The independent contribution of the 2 sources appears to be mandatory, as instructions to ignore 1 channel do not eliminate its influence (Study 3). Our results show that information contained in both the face and the voice contributes to first impression formation. This combination is, to some degree, outside conscious control, and the weighting of channel contribution varies according the trait being perceived.