Social Policy
You versus we: How pronoun use shapes perceptions of receptiveness
Mohamed Hussein & Zakary Tormala
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, January 2024
Abstract:
In response to increasing societal divisions, an extensive literature has emerged examining the construct of receptiveness. This literature suggests that signaling receptiveness to others confers a variety of interpersonal benefits, such as increased persuasiveness. How do people signal their receptiveness to others? The current research investigates whether one of the most fundamental aspects of language -- pronoun use -- could shape perceptions of receptiveness. We find that in adversarial contexts, messages containing second-person pronouns ("you" pronouns) are perceived as less receptive than messages containing first-person plural pronouns ("we" pronouns). We demonstrate that "you" pronouns signal aggressiveness, which reduces perceived receptiveness. Moreover, we document that perceived receptiveness influences important downstream consequences such as persuasion, interest in future interaction, sharing intentions, and censorship likelihood. These findings contribute to a fast-growing literature on perceived receptiveness, uncover novel consequences of signaling receptiveness, and contribute to our understanding of how pronouns shape social perception.
Saying no: The negative ramifications from invitation declines are less severe than we think
Julian Givi & Colleen Kirk
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
People are frequently invited to join others for fun social activities. They may be invited to lunch, to attend a sporting event, to watch the season finale of a television show, and so forth. Invitees -- those who are on the receiving ends of invitations -- sometimes accept invitations from inviters -- those who extend invitations -- but other times, invitees decline. Unfortunately, saying no can be hard, leading invitees to accept invitations when they would rather not. The present work sheds light on one factor that makes it so hard to decline invitations. We demonstrate that invitees overestimate the negative ramifications that arise in the eyes of inviters following an invitation decline. Invitees have exaggerated concerns about how much the decline will anger the inviter, signal that the invitee does not care about the inviter, make the inviter unlikely to offer another invitation in the future, and so forth. We also demonstrate that this asymmetry emerges in part because invitees exaggerate the degree to which inviters focus on the decline itself, as opposed to the thoughts ran through the invitee's head before deciding. Indeed, across multiple studies, we find support for this process through mediation and moderation, while simultaneously finding evidence against multiple alternative accounts. We conclude with a discussion of the contributions and limitations of this research, along with directions for future work.
Diplomacy online: A case of mistaking broadcasting for dialogue
Carla Anne Roos et al.
European Journal of Social Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
Online discussions can fuel perceptions of misalignment, disagreement, conflict or even polarization. In this study, we look at everyday diplomatic expressions that could buffer this. We use automated and manual coding to analyze diplomatic behaviour in online discussions and its consequences for discussion sentiment. We analyze Reddit forums with differing norms: civil (N = 4594 comments), incivil (N = 2126) and social support subreddits (N = 1401). The automated content analysis shows that diplomatic behaviour occurs but does not affect the subsequent discussion. The manual analysis reveals why: discussions consist of disjointed statements rather than dialogue, making diplomacy inconsequential. These results have consequences for the field. First, what appears to be an escalating dialogue might actually be a string of personal attitudes broadcasted in a shared space. Second, the usefulness of automated content analysis in studying interaction dynamics is limited because of difficulties distinguishing broadcasting from dialogue.
Catching a smile from individuals and crowds: Evidence for distinct emotional contagion processes
Adam Qureshi et al.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
Research examining how crowd emotions impact observers usually requires participants to engage in an atypical mental process whereby (static) arrays of individuals are cognitively integrated to represent a crowd. The present work sought to extend our understanding of how crowd emotions may spread to individuals by assessing self-reported emotions, attention and muscle movement in response to emotions of dynamic, virtually modeled crowd stimuli. Self-reported emotions and attention from thirty-six participants were assessed when foreground and background crowd characters exhibited homogeneous (Study 1) or heterogeneous (Study 2) positive, neutral, or negative emotions. Results suggested that affective responses in observers are shaped by crowd emotions even in the absence of direct attention. Thirty-four participants supplied self-report and facial electromyography responses to the same homogeneous (Study 3) or heterogeneous (Study 4) crowd stimuli. Results indicated that positive crowd emotions appeared to exert greater attentional pull and objective responses, while negative crowd emotions also elicited affective responses. Study 5 (n = 67) introduced a control condition (stimuli containing an individual person) to examine if responses are unique to crowds and found that emotional contagion from crowds was more intense than from individuals. These studies present methodological advances in the study of crowd emotional contagion and have implications for our broader understanding of how people process, attend, and affectively respond to crowds. Advancing theory by suggesting that emotional contagion from crowds is distinct from that elicited by individuals, findings may have applications for refining crowd management approaches.
Let it go: How exaggerating the reputational costs of revealing negative information encourages secrecy in relationships
Michael Kardas, Amit Kumar & Nicholas Epley
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
Keeping negative interpersonal secrets can diminish well-being, yet people nevertheless keep negative information secret from friends, family, and loved ones to protect their own reputations. Twelve experiments suggest these reputational concerns are systematically miscalibrated, creating a misplaced barrier to honesty in relationships. In hypothetical scenarios (Experiments 1, S1, and S2), laboratory experiments (Experiments 2 and 6), and field settings (Experiments 3 and 4), those who imagined revealing, or who actually revealed, negative information they were keeping secret expected to be judged significantly more harshly than recipients expected to judge, or actually judged, them. We theorized that revealers' pessimistic expectations stem not only from the cognitive accessibility of negative information (Experiment S3) but also from a perspective gap such that the negative outcomes of disclosing this information, compared to positive outcomes, are more accessible for prospective revealers than for recipients. Consistent with this mechanism, revealers' expectations were better calibrated when directed to focus on positive thoughts or when they considered revealing positive information (Experiments 5, 6, and S4). Revealers' miscalibrated expectations matter because they can guide decisions about whether to reveal information or conceal it as a secret (Experiment S5). As predicted, calibrating revealers' expectations increased their willingness to reveal negative information to others (Experiment 7), suggesting that miscalibrated fears of others' judgment create a misplaced barrier to honesty in relationships. Overestimating the reputational costs of disclosing negative information might leave people carrying a heavier burden of secrecy than would be optimal for their own well-being.