Alle Publikationen
- <<
- <
- 1
2017
-
(2017): Communal and agentic interpersonal and intergroup motives predict preferences for status versus power. In: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 43 (1), S. 71-86
Abstract: Seven studies involving 1,343 participants showed how circumplex models of social motives can help explain individual differences in preferences for status (having others' admiration) versus power (controlling valuable resources). Studies 1 to 3 and 7 concerned interpersonal motives in workplace contexts, and found that stronger communal motives (to have mutual trust, support, and cooperation) predicted being more attracted to status (but not power) and achieving more workplace status, while stronger agentic motives (to be firm, decisive, and influential) predicted being more attracted to and achieving more workplace power, and experiencing a stronger connection between workplace power and job satisfaction. Studies 4 to 6 found similar effects for intergroup motives: Stronger communal motives predicted wanting one's ingroup (e.g., country) to have status but not power relative to other groups. Finally, most people preferred status over power, and this was especially true for women, which was partially explained by women having stronger communal motives.
-
(2017): Preferred Interpersonal Distances. A Global Comparison. In: Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 48 (4), S. 577-592. DOI: 10.1177/0022022117698039
Abstract: Compared preferred interpersonal distances across the world in an extensive analysis over a large data set of 8,943 participants aged 17-88 years from 42 countries. The present study aimed to relate the preferred social, personal, and intimate distances observed in each country to a set of individual characteristics of the participants (age, gender), and some environmental and sociopsychological attributes of their cultures - parasite stress, population growth rate, ingroup favoritism, average annual temperature, and human development index (HDI). Participants rated interpersonal distance on graphic scales by indicating how near a stranger, acquaintance, or close person could approach them so they would feel comfortable in a conversation with them. Results show that individual characteristics (age and gender) influenced interpersonal space preferences and that some variation in results could be explained by temperature in a given region. Women preferred a greater distance with strangers and acquaintances, older people preferred greater distance with acquaintances and close persons. The higher the temperature, the closer the preferred distance to strangers; however, this relationship was reversed for close persons: Here, the preferred personal distance became greater for higher temperatures. Objective values of preferred interpersonal distances in different regions are presented, which might be used as a reference data point in future studies. zitiert von 8
-
(2017): Examining overlap in behavioral and neural representations of morals, facts, and preferences. In: Journal of experimental psychology. General 146 (11), S. 1586-1605. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000350
DOI: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28805441 Abstract: Metaethical judgments refer to judgments about the information expressed by moral claims. Moral objectivists generally believe that moral claims are akin to facts, whereas moral subjectivists generally believe that moral claims are more akin to preferences. Evidence from developmental and social psychology has generally favored an objectivist view; however, this work has typically relied on few examples, and analyses have disallowed statistical generalizations beyond these few stimuli. The present work addresses whether morals are represented as fact-like or preference-like, using behavioral and neuroimaging methods, in combination with statistical techniques that can (a) generalize beyond our sample stimuli, and (b) test whether particular item features are associated with neural activity. Behaviorally, and contrary to prior work, morals were perceived as more preference-like than fact-like. Neurally, morals and preferences elicited common magnitudes and spatial patterns of activity, particularly within the dorsal-medial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC), a critical region for social cognition. This common DMPFC activity for morals and preferences was present across whole-brain conjunctions, and in individually localized functional regions of interest (targeting the theory of mind network). By contrast, morals and facts did not elicit any neural activity in common. Follow-up item analyses suggested that the activity elicited in common by morals and preferences was explained by their shared tendency to evoke representations of mental states. We conclude that morals are represented as far more subjective than prior work has suggested. This conclusion is consistent with recent theoretical research, which has argued that morality is fundamentally about regulating social relationships. (PsycINFO Database Record zitiert von: 2
2016
-
(2016): Good manners. Signaling social preferences. In: Theory and Decision 81 (1), S. 73-88. DOI: 10.1007/s11238-015-9527-7
Abstract: Certain messages, even when not directly payoff relevant, can be a credible form of communication in light of natural social preferences. Social image concerns and other-regarding preferences interact to create incentives to communicate about how one feels about other people. Recognizing the prevalence of the incentive to communicate about one's social preferences suggests that many social and economic phenomena-from norms of etiquette to cooperation to gift exchange-should be seen, in part, as forms of signaling. These behaviors may be surprisingly robust to material costs, yet sensitive to context.
Keywords: altruistische Handlungen, Disziplin, economics, Favoriten, Good manners, Kosten-Nutzen, manners, Modelle/Theorien, Observablen/Kriterien für sozial angemessenes Verhalten und dessen Bewertung, Preferences, Signaling social preferences/ Social signal processing, Soziale Angemessenheit, Umgangsformen 2013
-
(2013): The Microevolution of Routines. How Problem Solving and Social Preferences Interact. In: Organization Science 24 (1), S. 99-115. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1110.0719
Abstract: Routines are repetitive patterns of activity within a group, action patterns that help the group to solve problems and organize its way of functioning. Routines address issues of problem solving as well as issues of internal integration, such as regulating group identity, status distribution, and relationships. This study uses an experiment with three-person groups to examine how routines evolve in the interaction of problem-solving and internal integration dynamics. In line with previous work, we find that groups do indeed develop problem-solving routines over time and use them consistently. Furthermore, group members internalize and retain routines in their individual decisions. The formation and retention of these routines is, however, affected by social comparisons. Groups that have a strong sense of group identity use their problem-solving routines more consistently. Their members also better retain the routines in their individual decisions. In contrast, we find that differentiated status within a group distorts its problem-solving routines by overweighting the influence of the high-status member. Status also interferes with the formation and retention of routines, in that groups are relatively less consistent in using them and their members show lower retention of the routine in their individual decisions. Finally, a strong relationship between two of the three members in a group (leaving the third group member out) enables the two to engage in consistent problem solving, but concomitantly, the group as a whole is less able to apply its routines consistently, and group retention of routines also suffers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) zitiert von 19
1995
-
(1995): Anomalies. Ultimatums, Dictators and Manners. In: Journal of Economic Perspectives 9 (2), S. 209-219. DOI: 10.1257/jep.9.2.209
Abstract: Economics can be distinguished from other social sciences by the belief that most (all?) behavior can be explained by assuming that agents have stable, well-defined preferences and make rational choices consistent with those preferences in markets that (eventually) clear. An empirical result qualifies as an anomaly if it is difficult to "rationalize" or if implausible assumptions are necessary to explain it within the paradigm. This column will resume, after a long rest, the investigation of such anomalies.
1988
-
(1988): Anomalies. Cooperation. In: Journal of Economic Perspectives 2 (3), S. 187-197. DOI: 10.1257/jep.2.3.187
Abstract: Economics can be distinguished from other social sciences by the belief that most (all?) behavior can be explained by assuming that agents have stable, well-defined preferences and make rational choices consistent with those preferences in markets that (eventually) clear. An empirical result qualifies as an anomaly if it is difficult to "rationalize", or if implausible assumptions are neccessary to explain it within the paradigm. This column will present a series of such anomalies
Keywords: Anomalien, economics, Good manners, Interaktion, Kooperation, Preferences, Soziale Angemessenheit
- <<
- <
- 1