The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation.

714

594

Although power is often conceptualized as the capacity to influence others, the current research explores whether power psychologically protects people from influence. In contrast to classic social psychological research demonstrating the strength of the situation in directing attitudes, expressions, and intentions, 5 experiments (using experiential primes, semantic primes, and role manipulations of power) demonstrate that the powerful (a) generate creative ideas that are less influenced by salient examples, (b) express attitudes that conform less to the expressed opinions of others, (c) are more influenced by their own social value orientation relative to the reputation of a negotiating opponent, and (d) perceive greater choice in making counterattitudinal statements. This last experiment illustrates that power is not always psychologically liberating; it can create internal conflict, arousing dissonance, and thereby lead to attitude change. Across the experiments, high-power participants were immune to the typical press of situations, with intrapsychic processes having greater sway than situational or interpersonal ones on their creative and attitudinal expressions.Keywords: power, influence, conformity, dissonance, creativityThe assertion that social and mental life is directed by the situation is almost a truism in social psychology. Situational cues, social norms, and the attitudes and behavior of others all provide guidance and boundaries for acceptable thought and behavior, pressing individuals in predictable directions. Indeed, the range of situational elements that have been found to influence individual psychology, from various subtle nonsocial cues (e.g., Dijksterhuis

Section: Svosupporting

confidence: 83%

Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance.

Galinsky

Magee

Gruenfeld

et al. 2008

714

594

“…Finally, in a separate exercise, participants indicated their social value orientations (SVO), a commonly used tool for measuring values relevant to conflict and negotiation (e.g., Van Lange, 1999). The SVO measure gathered responses to a series of nine decomposed games (Messick & McClintock, 1968; see also Van Lange, Otten, De Bruin, & Joireman, 1997).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assertiveness expectancies: How hard people push depends on the consequences they predict.

Ames¹

2008

The present article seeks to explain varying levels of assertiveness in interpersonal conflict and negotiations with assertiveness expectancies, idiosyncratic predictions people make about the social and instrumental consequences of assertive behavior. This account complements motivation-based models of assertiveness and competitiveness, suggesting that individuals may possess the same social values (e.g., concern for relationships) but show dramatically different assertiveness due to different assumptions about behavioral consequences. Results clarify the form of assertiveness expectancies, namely that most people assume increasing assertiveness can yield positive social and instrumental benefits up to a point, beyond which benefits decline. However, people vary in how assertive this perceived optimal point is. These individual differences in expectancies are linked in 4 studies to assertiveness, including selfreported assertiveness, rated behavioral preferences in assorted interpersonal conflict scenarios, partner ratings of participants' behavior in a face-to-face dyadic negotiation, and work colleague ratings of participants' assertiveness in the workplace. In each case, the link between expectancies and behavior remained after controlling for values. The results suggest a place for expectancies alongside values in psychological models of interpersonal assertiveness.

“…Research using computer simulations reveals that noise tends to exert detrimental effects on cooperation, suggesting that even a few incidents of noise disrupt cooperative interaction (e.g., Bendor, Kramer, & Stout, 1991;Molander, 1985). Such detrimental effects are especially pronounced for strategies that are largely reciprocal in nature-which tend to be strategies that are also commonly observed in actual participants (e.g., Kelley & Stahelski, 1970;Van Lange, 1999; see also Komorita & Parks, 1995). Moreover, some anecdotal evidence suggests that noise may exert detrimental effects on both impressions and cooperation.…”

Section: Does Noise Exert Detrimental Effects?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To begin with, computer simulations suggest that reciprocity is not an effective means for reducing the detrimental effects of noise (e.g., Bendor et al, 1991;Nowak & Sigmund, 1992). Indeed, if a person were to behave in a completely reciprocal manner, as advocated by the tit-for-tat (TFT) strategy, partners would become trapped in cycles of noncooperative interaction, which is referred to as the echo effect or negative reciprocity (Axelrod, 1984;Van Lange, 1999). Because TFT does not initiate cooperation, it does not actively contribute to breaking out of the pattern of negative reciprocity; if anything, TFT supports negative reciprocity.…”

Section: Coping With Noise: Past Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Cope With "Noise" in Social Dilemmas: The Benefits of Communication.

Tazelaar¹,

Lange²,

Ouwerkerk³

2004

Self Cite

Interactions in social life may be seriously affected by negative noise, whereby actual or perceived behavior is less cooperative than was intended (e.g., arriving late due to an unforeseen traffic jam). The present research examines whether negative noise exerts detrimental effects on impressions and cooperation and whether such effects could be reduced by communication. Consistent with hypotheses, Study 1 revealed that negative noise exerts detrimental effects on both impressions of partners' benign intent and cooperation and that these detrimental effects could be effectively reduced by communication about noise. Study 2 replicated both findings but only for individuals with low trust. Mediation analysis revealed that impressions of benign intent and prosocial interaction goals underlie the positive effects of communication on cooperation.It is an inevitable fact from social life that one's behavior is not always perceived or experienced by others as intended, and sometimes one is simply not able to act according to his or her intentions. For example, even if people are strongly determined to arrive on time for a meeting, their actions may be subject to unintended errors (e.g., taking the wrong exit, being held up by an unexpected traffic jam) that cause them to arrive late. In the context of social dilemmas (i.e., conflicts between self-interest and collective interest) such unintended errors are referred to as noise, which is defined as "discrepancies between intended and actual outcomes for an interaction partner due to unintended errors" (e.g., Van Lange, Ouwerkerk, & Tazelaar, 2002, p. 768; cf. Kollock, 1993;Wu & Axelrod, 1995).Of particular relevance to the present research is negative noise; that is, unintended errors that cause actual outcomes to be worse than intended. Relative to positive noise-that is, unintended errors that cause actual outcomes to be better than intendednegative noise is assumed to form a stronger challenge to trust and impressions of benign intent, as well as a stronger threat to cooperative interaction. For example, failure to respond to an e-mail message due to a computer network breakdown may cause misunderstanding, thereby exerting detrimental effects on impressions ("he always makes me wait") and future cooperation ("next time, I will make him wait as well"). Indeed, the concept of negative noise gives rise to several intriguing questions. Do incidents of negative noise always exert detrimental effects on impressions and cooperation? More important: What can people do to reduce such (assumed) detrimental effects? Is it possible to "undo" incidents of noise and, if so, how? Is it possible to undo noise by communication, informing the other when a particular interaction outcome was affected by noise ("I did not mean it that way")?The present research addresses these questions, thereby pursuing two complementary goals. First, we wish to demonstrate that incidents of negative noise (henceforth, noise) exert detrimental effects on impressions of interpersonal intent and coopera...