Communal and Agentic Content in Social Cognition

Abele, Andrea E.; Wojciszke, Bogdan

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-800284-1.00004-7

Cited by 546 publications

(698 citation statements)

References 122 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

626

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research showed that when thinking about themselves (and close others) people typically assume an agentic perspective (the point of view of an actor performing an action) leading to the prominence of agentic over communal contents (Abele & Wojciszke, 2014). This association between the self and agentic content is bidirectional and the present research shows that mere thinking about a person in agentic terms can make him or her psychologically closer.…”

Section: Figure 3 Mediation Of Priming Effects On Voting Declarationmentioning

confidence: 53%

“…These distinctions are not identical, but they show a substantial overlap when studied empirically on the level of abstract trait-names frequently used to capture their meaning (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007). A variety of research showed these two types of content are independent (instead of being opposite poles of the same dimension) and play a prominent role in various operations involved in the perception of others (Abele & Wojciszke, 2014), the self (Wojciszke, 2005) and social groups (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2008).…”

Section: Agency and Communion In Social Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The answer is provided by the Double Perspective Model (DPM) of social cognition (Abele & Wojciszke, 2014;Wojciszke et al, 2011) which departures from the already discussed notion that agency and communion constitute two fundamental dimensions of social cognition. DPM assumes that people construe meaning in motivationally relevant terms and, therefore, communion is more relevant when perceiving others, while agency is more relevant in selfperception.…”

Section: Agency and Communion In Social Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whereas agentic qualities are directly rewarding for their possessors (whatever one does, it is better to do it in an intelligent and efficient way), communal qualities are rewarding mainly for the surrounding others (who profit from my friendliness and honesty which may be costly for me). This notion of self-versus other profitability (Peeters, 1992) leads to a well-supported idea that agentic categories denote interests of an acting person, while communal categories reflect interests of others who are recipients of the action in question (Abele & Wojciszke, 2014).…”

Section: Agency and Communion In Social Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Brought to you by | MIT Libraries Authenticated Download Date | 5/11/18 7:30 AM Hypotheses DPM assumes that perceptions of other people are dominated by communion over agency, whereas perceptions of the self are dominated by agency over communion, and there is ample empirical evidence for both assertions (see Abele & Wojciszke, 2014, for review). However, not all others were created equal.…”

Section: Agency and Communion In Social Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Agentic Thinking About Others Makes Them Closer

Piotrowski¹,

Wojciszke²

2015

Polish Psychological Bulletin

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Figure 3 Mediation Of Priming Effects On Voting Declarationmentioning

confidence: 53%

Section: Agency and Communion In Social Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Agency and Communion In Social Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Agency and Communion In Social Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Agency and Communion In Social Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Agentic Thinking About Others Makes Them Closer

Piotrowski¹,

Wojciszke²

2015

Polish Psychological Bulletin

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 3 C's of anthropomorphism: Connection, comprehension, and competition

Yang

Aggarwal

McGill

2019

Consumer Psychology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropomorphism, or imbuing nonhuman entities with human traits, is widely prevalent in the marketplace. The last decade of consumer research demonstrates that when imbued with human characteristics, anthropomorphized brands and products become active participants in the consumption experience and are viewed and treated fundamentally differently than those viewed simply as objects. We identify three dimensions around how consumers relate to anthropomorphized entities: connection, comprehension, and competition. The first two C's highlight how anthropomorphized brands and products benefit consumers by fulfilling belongingness needs (connection) and helping consumers understand unfamiliar situations and products (comprehension). In contrast, the competition dimension highlights how anthropomorphized brands and products are perceived as adversaries or potential threats to consumers’ individual goals. By identifying competition as the third C, we illuminate self‐protection as an additional motivation that shapes consumers’ responses to anthropomorphized entities—a motivation that has not been directly accounted for in previous theorizing.

show abstract

Some People Heed Advice Less than Others: Agency (but Not Communion) Predicts Advice Taking

Schultze

Gerlach

Rittich

2017

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Across three studies (total N = 793), we investigated the link between two fundamental dimensions of personality, agency and communion, and advice taking in quantity estimation tasks. We complemented the analyses of the individual studies with meta‐analyses across all three studies in order to gain insight into the robustness of our core results. In line with our expectations, agency was associated with less advice taking, and this effect was mediated by individuals' perceptions of their own competence. Contrary to what we expected, we did not find consistent evidence that communion systematically relates to advice taking. Analyses of judges' initial accuracy further suggested that agentic judges' lower willingness to heed advice was justified by greater initial accuracy as compared with their less agentic peers. Our data, thus, provide evidence of individual differences in advice taking and shed some light on the question which individuals are more inclined to heed advice than others. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Communal and Agentic Content in Social Cognition

Cited by 546 publications

References 122 publications

Agentic Thinking About Others Makes Them Closer

Agentic Thinking About Others Makes Them Closer

The 3 C's of anthropomorphism: Connection, comprehension, and competition

Some People Heed Advice Less than Others: Agency (but Not Communion) Predicts Advice Taking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About