Social Welfare
Should I Ask Over Zoom, Phone, Email, or In-Person? Communication Channel and Predicted Versus Actual Compliance
Mahdi Roghanizad & Vanessa Bohns
Social Psychological and Personality Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
Research has found that people are much more likely to agree to help requests made in-person than those made via text-based media, but that help-seekers underestimate the relative advantage of asking for help face-to-face. It remains unknown what help-seekers’ intuitions about the effectiveness of richer media channels incorporating audio and video features might be, or how these intuitions would compare with the actual effectiveness of face-to-face or email versus rich media requests. In two behavioral and two supplemental vignette experiments, participants expected differences in the effectiveness of seeking help through various communication channels to be quite small, or nonexistent. However, when participants actually made requests, the differences were substantial. Ultimately, help-seekers underestimated the relative advantage of asking for help face-to-face compared with asking through any mediated channel. Help-seekers also underestimated the relative advantage of asking through richer media channels compared with email.
The virus of distrust: How one victim-sensitive group member can affect the entire group's outcomes
Zoe Magraw-Mickelson, Philipp Süssenbach & Mario Gollwitzer
European Journal of Social Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
Victim sensitivity (VS) is a personality trait conceptualized as the expectation of being exploited by others. Previous research has shown that one highly victim-sensitive group member can negatively impact the entire group's outcomes. In the present research, we investigate boundary conditions and mechanisms underlying this effect. Study 1 (N = 134 individuals, 40 groups) shows that the VS score of the most victim-sensitive group member negatively predicts a group's performance, particularly when the group's collective conscientiousness is high. Study 2 (N = 135 individuals, 45 groups) shows that groups that include one (compared to no) victim-sensitive group member perform worse, especially when the task is perceived as requiring mutual trust. Study 3 (N = 234) confirms that expressing VS explicitly reduces cooperation within the group. These findings suggest that the virus of distrust can spread quickly and may have detrimental consequences on group performance and intragroup cooperation.
The Social Consequences of Frequent Versus Infrequent Apologizing
Karina Schumann, Emily Ritchie & Amanda Forest
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, forthcoming
Abstract:
The effectiveness of interpersonal apologies is well established, but most existing research has examined the benefits of isolated apologies. How do apologies function when considered in the context of a transgressor’s apology baseline — the frequency with which they tend to apologize for their behavior? We examined whether people consider others’ apology baselines when evaluating both their character and specific apologies from them. In Study 1, participants judged a character with a high (vs. low) apology baseline as higher in communion and lower in agency. In Study 2, participants judged romantic partners with high (vs. low) apology baselines as higher in communion, but only lower in agency when they perceived these frequent apologies as low-quality. In both studies, having a high apology baseline was also indirectly associated with more favorable reactions to a specific apology via higher communion judgments, revealing the role of apology baselines in shaping conflict resolution processes.
Familial resemblance, citizenship, and counterproductive work behavior: A combined twin, adoption, parent–offspring, and spouse approach
Elise Anderson et al.
Journal of Applied Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
Given the well-documented importance of counterproductive workplace behavior and organizational citizenship behavior (together nontask performance), it is important to clarify the degree to which these behaviors are attributable to organizational climate versus preexisting individual differences. Such clarification informs where these behaviors stem from, and consequently has practical implications for organizations (e.g., guiding prioritization of selection criteria). We investigated familial resemblance for nontask performance among twins, nontwin and adoptive siblings, parents and offspring, and midlife and late-life couples drawn from two, large-scale studies: the Minnesota Twin Family Study and the Sibling Interaction Behavior Study. Similarity among family members’ (e.g., parents–offspring, siblings) engagement in nontask performance was assessed to estimate the degree to which preexisting individual differences (i.e., genetic variability) and the environment (i.e., environmentality) accounted for variation in counterproductive and citizenship behavior. We found that degree of familial resemblance for nontask performance increased with increasing genetic relationship. Nonetheless, genetically identical individuals correlated only moderately in their workplace behavior (r = .29–.40), highlighting the importance of environmental differences. Notably, family members were more similar in their counterproductive than citizenship behavior, suggesting citizenship behavior is comparatively more environmentally influenced. Spouse/partner similarity for nontask behavior was modest and did not vary between midlife and late-life couples, suggesting spousal influence on nontask performance is limited. These findings offer insight to organizations regarding the degree of nature (individual differences) and nurture (including organizational factors) influences on nontask performance, which has implications for the selection of interventions (e.g., relative value of applicant selection or incumbent interventions).
Fast response times signal social connection in conversation
Emma Templeton et al.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 25 January 2022
Abstract:
Clicking is one of the most robust metaphors for social connection. But how do we know when two people "click"? We asked pairs of friends and strangers to talk with each other and rate their felt connection. For both friends and strangers, speed in response was a robust predictor of feeling connected. Conversations with faster response times felt more connected than conversations with slower response times, and within conversations, connected moments had faster response times than less-connected moments. This effect was determined primarily by partner responsivity: People felt more connected to the degree that their partner responded quickly to them rather than by how quickly they responded to their partner. The temporal scale of these effects (<250 ms) precludes conscious control, thus providing an honest signal of connection. Using a round-robin design in each of six closed networks, we show that faster responders evoked greater feelings of connection across partners. Finally, we demonstrate that this signal is used by third-party listeners as a heuristic of how well people are connected: Conversations with faster response times were perceived as more connected than the same conversations with slower response times. Together, these findings suggest that response times comprise a robust and sufficient signal of whether two minds “click.”