Let's deal
Is Deference the Price of Being Seen as Reasonable? How Status Hierarchies Incentivize Acceptance of Low Status
Cecilia Ridgeway & Sandra Nakagawa
Social Psychology Quarterly, June 2017, Pages 132-152
Abstract:
High-status members are incentivized to contribute to a group's collective endeavors by the deference and influence they receive. But what incentives do groups offer low-status members for their continued participation and deference to high-status others? We develop and test a theoretical account of how the implicit cultural rules for status hierarchies create a modest incentive system for deference to those deemed more valuable to the collective effort. Such deference endorses the group's shared expectations for what is perceived to be validly better. The group responds by granting the deferrer a modicum of respect: the dignity of being seen as reasonable. This respect reaction acts as an incentive system that tempts the low-status person to stay involved in the group's endeavor despite being less valued. Three experiments confirm that low-status members anticipate receiving and higher-status members offer such reactions of respect and reasonableness for low-status deference, and these reactions increase low-status members' commitment to the group. A fourth study with a nationally representative sample supports the robustness of these findings.
Distinctive Facial Cues Predict Leadership Rank and Selection
Daniel Re & Nicholas Rule
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, forthcoming
Abstract:
Facial appearance correlates with leadership, both in terms of who is chosen (leader selection) and how they do (leader success). Leadership theories suggest that exceptional individuals acquire positions as leaders. Exceptional traits can differ between domains, however, and so the qualities valued in leaders in one occupation may not match those valued among leaders in another. To test this, we compared the relationship between facial appearance and leadership across two domains: law firms and mafia families. Perceptions of power correlated with leadership among law executives whereas social skill correlated with leadership in organized crime. Critically, these traits were distinctive within their respective groups. Furthermore, an experimental test showed that the relative frequency of facial traits in a group can render them either an asset or liability. Perceived leadership ability is therefore enhanced by characteristics that appear unique among individuals who satisfy the basic criteria for their group.
Power Moves Beyond Complementarity: A Staring Look Elicits Avoidance in Low Power Perceivers and Approach in High Power Perceivers
Mario Weick, Cade McCall & Jim Blascovich
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, forthcoming
Abstract:
Sustained, direct eye-gaze - staring - is a powerful cue that elicits strong responses in many primate and nonprimate species. The present research examined whether fleeting experiences of high and low power alter individuals' spontaneous responses to the staring gaze of an onlooker. We report two experimental studies showing that sustained, direct gaze elicits spontaneous avoidance tendencies in low power perceivers and spontaneous approach tendencies in high power perceivers. These effects emerged during interactions with different targets and when power was manipulated between-individuals (Study 1) and within-individuals (Study 2), thus attesting to a high degree of flexibility in perceivers' reactions to gaze cues. Together, the present findings indicate that power can break the cycle of complementarity in individuals' spontaneous responding: Low power perceivers complement and move away from, and high power perceivers reciprocate and move toward, staring onlookers.
Trust is heritable, whereas distrust is not
Martin Reimann, Oliver Schilke & Karen Cook
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, forthcoming
Abstract:
Why do people distrust others in social exchange? To what degree, if at all, is distrust subject to genetic influences, and thus possibly heritable, and to what degree is it nurtured by families and immediate peers who encourage young people to be vigilant and suspicious of others? Answering these questions could provide fundamental clues about the sources of individual differences in the disposition to distrust, including how they may differ from the sources of individual differences in the disposition to trust. In this article, we report the results of a study of monozygotic and dizygotic female twins who were asked to decide either how much of a counterpart player's monetary endowment they wanted to take from their counterpart (i.e., distrust) or how much of their own monetary endowment they wanted to send to their counterpart (i.e., trust). Our results demonstrate that although the disposition to trust is explained to some extent by heritability but not by shared socialization, the disposition to distrust is explained by shared socialization but not by heritability. The sources of distrust are therefore distinct from the sources of trust in many ways.
When I Think of You I Project Myself: Examining Idiographic Goals From the Perspective of Self and Other
William Dunlop et al.
Social Psychological and Personality Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
Across two studies, we examined the correspondence between targets' idiographic goals and the goals attributed to them by their social contacts. In both studies, targets listed their personal goals while informants specified the goals they believed targets were pursuing. Target and informant ratings of interpersonal closeness were also collected. Furthermore, in Study 2, informants listed the goals that they themselves were currently pursuing. All goals were coded for motive-based (e.g., power) and domain-based (e.g., health) content. Informant and target reports were largely unrelated and relationship closeness did not moderate this association, although self-other agreement was noted in one domain-based category. In Study 2, the content of informants' other-attributed goals was strongly predicted by the content of their self-attributed goals. Thus, when individuals perceive the goals and motivations of others, they tend to project their own motivational proclivities.
Young children discover how to deceive in 10 days: A microgenetic study
Xiao Pan Ding et al.
Developmental Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
We investigated how the ability to deceive emerges in early childhood among a sample of young preschoolers (Mean age = 34.7 months). We did this via a 10-session microgenetic method that took place over a 10-day period. In each session, children played a zero-sum game against an adult to win treats. In the game, children hid the treats and had opportunities (10 trials) to win them by providing deceptive information about their whereabouts to the adult. Although children initially showed little or no ability to deceive, most spontaneously discovered deception and systematically used it to win the game by the tenth day. Both theory of mind and executive function skills were predictive of relatively faster patterns of discovery. These results are the first to provide evidence for the importance of cognitive skills and social experience in the discovery of deception over time in early childhood.
Effect of Cohesion on the Curvilinear Relationship Between Team Efficacy and Performance
Won-Woo Park, Mee Sook Kim & Stanley Gully
Small Group Research, forthcoming
Abstract:
Research has generally supported a linear positive relationship between team efficacy and team performance. More recent theories and research suggest, however, that teams can become overly efficacious and team efficacy may exhibit nonlinear relationships with outcomes. The current study investigates the possibility that team efficacy is associated with decreases in team performance when the level of team efficacy is excessively high or low. This study further suggests that cohesion is an important contextual factor that may affect the curvilinear relationship between team efficacy and performance such that high levels of cohesion will magnify the curvilinear relationship whereas low levels of cohesion will flatten the curvilinear pattern. Hypotheses were tested using 324 employees in 34 work teams. Results demonstrate that the curvilinear relationship between team efficacy and team performance was strongest when cohesion was high; the relationship flattened when cohesion was low. Implications and limitations are discussed.