Liking goes from the perceiver’s self-interest, but respect is socially shared

• Authors: Wiesław Baryła
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Liking and respect are postulated as two dimensions of interpersonal attitudes. Liking-disliking is an idiosyncratic response which depends mostly on how target persons influence interests and well-being of the attitude holder and is accompanied by beliefs in their communal traits. Respect-disrespect is a socially shared response which depends mostly on the social status of target persons and is accompanied by beliefs in their agency. This Self-interest /Status Model (SSM) of differences between liking and respect was tested in two studies. It was predicted and found that respect responses (and underlying judgments of agentic traits) are socially shared to higher extent than liking responses (and underlying judgments of communal traits).

Keywords

EN

liking; respect; interpersonal attitudes; agentic traits; communal traits; styles of conflict behavior; competition; accommodation; social sharedness

• Publisher: Polska Akademia Nauk
• Journal: Polish Psychological Bulletin
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 45
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 402-410

Dates

published

2014-12-01

online

2014-12-16

Contributors

author

Wiesław Baryła

• University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Faculty in Sopot, ul. Polna 16/20, 81-745 Sopot;

References

• Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2014). Communal and agentic content in social cognition: A dual perspective model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, in press.
• Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory: Concepts and applications. Chichester: Wiley.
• Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258-290.
• Berger, J., Fisek, H., & Norman, R. Z. (1989). The evolution of status expectations: A theoretical extension. In J. Berger, M. Zelditch, & B.
• Anderson (Eds.), Sociological theories in progress: New formulations (pp. 100-130). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Bocian, K., & Wojciszke, B. (2014a). Self-interest bias in moral judgments of others’ actions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, in press.
• Bocian, K., & Wojciszke, B. (2014b). Unawareness of self-interest bias in moral judgments of others’ behavior. Polish Psychological Bulletin, in press.
• Burnstein, E. & Braningen, C. (2001) Evolutionary analyses in social psychology. In A. Tesser, & N. Schwarz (Eds.) Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intraindividual processes (pp. 3-21). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers.
• Butler, D. M. (2009). A regression discontinuity design analysis of the incumbency advantage and tenure in the US House. Electoral Studies, 28(1), 123-128.[Crossref]
• Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
• Chemers, M. M. (2001). Leadership effectiveness: An integrative review.In M. A. Hogg, & R. S. Tindale (Eds.) Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes (pp. 376-399). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers.
• Cuddy, A., Fiske, S., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS Map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61-149.
• Ferguson, M. J., & Bargh, J. A. (2004). Liking is for doing: The effects of goals pursuit on automatic evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 557-572.
• Fiske, S. T. (2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 941-982). New York: Wiley.
• Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from the perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.
• Fiske, S. T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 473-491.
• Fitzsimons, G. M., & Shah, J. Y. (2008). How goal instrumentality shapes relationship evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 319-337.
• Georgesen, J .C., & Harris, M. J. (1998). Why’s my boss always holding me down? A meta-analysis of power effects on performance evaluation.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 184-195.[Crossref]
• Grabowski, A., Wojciszke, B., & Broemer, P. (2005). Ambivalence of attitudes towards people with whom the contact is closed or continued. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 36, 99-107.
• Greenberg, J. (1996). The quest for justice: Essays and experiments.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Hainmueller, J., & Kern, H. L. (2008). Incumbency as a source of spillover effects in mixed electoral systems: Evidence from a regressiondiscontinuity design. Electoral Studies, 27(2), 213-227.[Crossref]
• Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
• Jamieson, D., Lydon, J., & Zanna, M. P. (1987). Attitude and activity preference similarity: Differential bases of interpersonal attraction for low and high self-monitors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1052-1060.
• Jonas, K., Brömer, P., & Diehl, M. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence.European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 35-74.
• Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265-284.
• Kiesler, C., & Goldberg, G. (1968). Multidimensional approach to the experimental study of interpersonal attraction: Effect of a blunder on the attractiveness of a competent other. Psychological Reports, 22, 693-705.[Crossref]
• Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1985). Public opinion and political action.In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.) Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 659-741). New York: Random House.
• Klusek, B. (2009). Kwestionariusz stylów rozwiązywania konfliktów [A questionnaire of behavior in conflict situation]. Czasopismo Psychologiczne, 15, 119-140.
• Lee, D. S. (2008). Randomized experiments from non-random selection in US House elections. Journal of Econometrics, 142(2), 675-697.
• Lydon, J. E., Jamieson, D. W., & Zanna, M. P. (1988). Interpersonal similarity and the social and intellectual dimensions of the first impressions. Social Cognition, 4, 269-286.[Crossref]
• Newcomb, T. (1960). Varieties of interpersonal attraction. In D. Cartrwright, & A. Zander (Eds.) Group dynamics: Research and theory (pp. 104-119). New York: Harper & Row.
• Parsons, T. & Bales, R. F. (1955). Family, socialization, and interaction process. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
• Peeters, G. (1992). Evaluative meanings of adjectives in vitro and in context: Some theoretical implications and practical consequences of positive negative asymmetry and behavioral-adaptive concepts of evaluation. Psychologia Belgica, 32, 211-231.
• Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Social status and group structure. In M. A. Hogg, & R. S. Tindale (Eds.) Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 352-375). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers.
• Rosenberg, S., & Sedlak, A. (1972). Structural representations of implicit personality theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 235-297). New York: Academic Press.
• Rosenberg, S., Nelson, C., & Vivekananthan, P. S. (1968). A multidimensional approach to the structure of personality impressions.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 283-294.
• Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving: An invitation to social psychology.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Singh, R., & Ho, S. Y. (2000). Attitudes and attraction: A new test of the attraction, repulsion and similarity-dissimilarity asymmetry hypotheses. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 197-211.
• Singh, R., & Teoh, J. B. P. (1999). Attitudes and attraction: A test of two hypotheses for the similarity-dissimilarity asymmetry. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 427-443.[Crossref]
• Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 181-227). New York: Academic Press.
• Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice.In M. P. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 331-376). New York: Academic Press.
• Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations.In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 651-717). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Tindale, R. S., & Kameda, T. (2000). “Social sharedness” as a unifying theme for information processing in groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3, 123-140.
• Wojciszke, B. (1994). Multiple meanings of behavior: Construing actions in terms of competence and morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 222-232.
• Wojciszke, B. (2001). The consequences of being an influential minority on social controversies in the Polish emerging democracy. In: W.
• Wosinska, R. B. Cialdini, J. Reykowski, & D. W. Barrett (Ed.) The practice of social influence in multiple cultures (pp. 173-188).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Wojciszke, B. (2011). Psychologia społeczna. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
• Wojciszke, B. (2010). Sprawczosc i wspolnotowosc. Podstawowe wymiary spostrzegania społecznego. Gdansk: Gdanskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
• Wojciszke, B., Abele, A. E., & Baryla, W. (2009). Two dimensions of interpersonal attitudes: Liking depends on communion, respect depends on agency. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39 (6), 973-990.[Crossref]
• Wojciszke, B., Baryla, W., Parzuchowski, M., Szymkow, A., & Abele, A. E. (2011). Self-esteem is dominated by agentic over communal information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 617-627.[Crossref]
• Wojciszke, B., Bazinska, R., & Jaworski, M. (1998). On the dominance of moral categories in impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1245-1257.
• Wojciszke, B., Dowhyluk, M., & Jaworski, M. (1998). Moral and competence-related traits: how do they differ? Polish Psychological Bulletin, 29, 283-294.
• Worchel, P., & McCromick, B. (1963). Self-concept and dissonancereduction.Journal of Personality, 31, 588-599.
• Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/ppb-2014-0049