Two experiments probed the role of strategies used in social conflicts on perception of agency and communion. In study 1, persons who revealed prosocial orientation were perceived as less agentic, but more communal than those who revealed competitive orientation. In study 2 these findings were replicated in the context of organizational conflict, those who decided to use confrontational strategies were also perceived as more agentic, although less communal than these who used cooperative strategies. In line with the theory of power effects on objectification of social targets, the perceived agency and communion were differently linked to superior’s and subordinate’s evaluation. While perceived agency predicted the subordinate’s evaluation, perceived communion predicted superior’s evaluation, but not the other way round. Moreover, perception of communion (but not agency) mediated the negative effect of confrontational strategies on supervisor’s evaluation. On the other hand, perceived agency suppressed the effect of strategies on subordinate’s evaluation.
Two experiments probed the role of strategies used in social conflicts on perception of agency and communion. In study 1, persons who revealed prosocial orientation were perceived as less agentic, but more communal than those who revealed competitive orientation. In study 2 these findings were replicated in the context of organizational conflict, those who decided to use confrontational strategies were also perceived as more agentic, although less communal than these who used cooperative strategies. In line with the theory of power effects on objectification of social targets, the perceived agency and communion were differently linked to superior’s and subordinate’s evaluation. While perceived agency predicted the subordinate’s evaluation, perceived communion predicted superior’s evaluation, but not the other way round. Moreover, perception of communion (but not agency) mediated the negative effect of confrontational strategies on supervisor’s evaluation. On the other hand, perceived agency suppressed the effect of strategies on subordinate’s evaluation.
Mimicry has been proven to be responsible for many social consequences linked to social bonding: improved trust, liking, and rapport. This accumulating empirical evidence has mostly been based on experimental designs focused on comparisons between two conditions: an experimental condition involving mimicking behavior versus a control condition in which any movement or direct verbal reaction is withdrawn. Thus, it is unclear whether the observed differences stem from a potential increase in liking, trust, or rapport in the mimicry condition or a decrease thereof when naturally occurring gestures are not present during the interaction. To address this potential confound, we included an additional control condition involving responsiveness (but not mimicry) aimed at increasing both internal and external validity. We found significant differences between the mimicry condition and both control conditions, thereby lending support to the original mimicry-as-a-social-glue hypothesis.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.