ABSTRACT
Behavioral adaptability is the ability to adapt one's interpersonal behavior to the expectations of the social interaction partners. In this paper, we investigated two factors that impact the extent to which people express behavioral adaptability. First, we investigated whether behavioral adaptability depends on the interaction partners' social categories (in-group vs. out-group). Second, we tested whether social dominance orientation (SDO) is related to behavioral adaptability and whether this relationship depends on the interaction partners' belonging to the in- or out-group. To do so, we conducted 2 studies in which we manipulated whether the interaction partners belong to the in- or to the out-group and in which we assessed participants SDO. In both studies, participants were in the role of a leader who had to give separate pep talks to 2 subordinates who differed in terms of preferred leadership style and we operationalized behavioral adaptability by coding to what extent participants adapted (Study 1) or reported that they would adapt (Study 2) their leadership style according to their subordinates' individual preferences. Study 1 used immersive virtual reality and included White/Caucasian male participants (N = 173). Study 2 was a vignette study including men and women who were either White/Caucasian or Black/African American (N = 741). Results showed that the subordinates' social category did not impact the extent to which participants express behavioral adaptability. However, SDO was differently related to behavioral adaptability depending both on participants social categories (e.g., ethnicity and sex) and subordinates' belonging to the in- or out-group. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Subject(s)
Social Dominance , Female , Humans , MaleABSTRACT
The ability to recognise others' emotions from nonverbal cues (emotion recognition ability, ERA) is measured with performance-based tests and has many positive correlates. Although researchers have long proposed that ERA is related to general mental ability or intelligence, a comprehensive analysis of this relationship is lacking. For instance, it remains unknown whether the magnitude of the association varies by intelligence type, ERA test features, as well as demographic variables. The present meta-analysis examined the relationship between ERA and intelligence based on 471 effect sizes from 133 samples and found a significant mean effect size (controlled for nesting within samples) of r = .19. Different intelligence types (crystallized, fluid, spatial, memory, information processing speed and efficiency) yielded similar effect sizes, whereas academic achievement measures (e.g. SAT scores) were unrelated to ERA. Effect sizes were higher for ERA tests that simultaneously present facial, vocal, and bodily cues (as compared to tests using static pictures) and for tests with higher reliability and more emotions. Results were unaffected by most study and sample characteristics, but effect size increased with higher mean age of the sample. These findings establish ERA as sensory-cognitive ability that is distinct from, yet related to, intelligence.
Subject(s)
Emotions , Intelligence , Recognition, Psychology , Academic Success , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Cues , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Young AdultABSTRACT
We review the scientific evidence concerning the relation between power and social information processing. Does having or obtaining power affect how we perceive and judge our social interaction partners and how accurately we do this? High power individuals perceive others as more agentic and tend to project characteristics of themselves onto others. People in power tend to stereotype others more and see them as less human and generally in a more negative way. Powerholders are not more or less accurate in assessing others; rather, the way they understand their power (as responsibility or opportunity) seems to make the difference: Power as responsibility results in better interpersonal accuracy. Our analysis shows that it is not so much being high or low in power that explains how we perceive others, but rather how we understand our power, whether our high power position is stable, and what our current interaction goals are.
