Search

We investigated two types of metaphors in stock market commentary. "Agent" metaphors describe price trajectories as volitional actions, whereas "object" metaphors describe them as movements of inanimate objects. Study 1 examined the consequences of commentators' metaphors for their investor audience. Agent metaphors, compared with object metaphors and non-metaphoric descriptions, caused investors to expect price trend continuance. The remaining studies examined preconditions, the features of a price trend that evoke agent vs. object metaphors. We hypothesized that the rate of agentic metaphors would depend on the trend direction (upday vs. downday) and steadiness (steady vs. unsteady). Two archival studies tracked the metaphoric content in end-of-day CNBC commentary as a function of daily price trajectories. As predicted, agent metaphors occurred more frequently on updays than downdays and especially so when the trends were relatively steady as opposed to unsteady. This held for both bull (Study 2) and bear market periods (Study 3). Study 4 replicated these findings in a laboratory experiment where participants took the role of stock market commentator. (Contains 4 figures and 6 tables.)

The authors posit that women can rely on self-monitoring to overcome negative gender stereotypes in certain performance contexts. In a study of mixed-sex task groups, the authors found that female group members who were high self-monitors were considered more influential and more valuable contributors than women who were low self-monitors. Men benefited relatively less from self-monitoring behavior. In an experimental study of dyadic negotiations, the authors found that women who were high self-monitors performed better than women who were low self-monitors, particularly when they were negotiating over a fixed pool of resources, whereas men did not benefit as much from self-monitoring. Further analyses suggest that high self-monitoring women altered their behavior in these negotiations--when their partner behaved assertively, they increased their level of assertiveness, whereas men and low self-monitoring women did not alter their behavior. (Contains 2 tables and 5 figures.)

After decades of research highlighting the fallibility of first impressions, recent years have featured reports of valid impressions based on surprisingly limited information, such as photos and short videos.Yet beneath mean levels of accuracy lies tremendous variance-some snap judgments are well-founded, others wrongheaded. An essential question for perceivers, therefore, is whether and when to trust their initial intuitions about others. In three studies of first impressions based on photos and videos, the authors examined accuracy for Big Five trait judgments as well as corresponding reports of confidence. Overall, perceivers showed a limited ability to intuit which of their impressions were more accurate than others, although a curvilinear effect emerged: In the relatively few cases where perceivers reported an absolute lack of confidence, their accuracy was indeed comparatively low. Across the studies, judgment confidence was shaped by sources at the judgment level and the judge level that were unrelated to accuracy.

Prior research shows that perceivers can judge some traits better than others in first impressions of targets. However, questions remain about which traits perceivers naturally do infer. Here, the authors develop an account of the 'agreeableness asymmetry': Although perceivers show little ability to accurately gauge target agreeableness in first impressions, they find that agreeableness is generally the most commonly inferred disposition among the Big Five dimensions of personality (agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness, openness, and emotional stability). Using open-ended impressions based on photographs, videos, and face-to-face encounters, three studies show agreeableness as the most prevalently judged of the Big Five, although it is also poorly judged in both absolute and relative terms. The authors use interpersonal power to reveal an underlying mechanism. Manipulating the power of perceivers relative to targets substantially shifts impression content, suggesting that habitual interaction and relational concerns may partially explain perceiver's chronic interest in assessing agreeableness despite their limited ability to do so. Keywords: impression formation; trait; person perception; Big Five; agreeableness; power

The present article seeks to explain varying levels of assertiveness in interpersonal conflict and negotiations with assertiveness expectancies, idiosyncratic predictions people make about the social and instrumental consequences of assertive behavior. This account complements motivation-based models of assertiveness and competitiveness, suggesting that individuals may possess the same social values (e.g., concern for relationships) but show dramatically different assertiveness due to different assumptions about behavioral consequences. Results clarify the form of assertiveness expectancies, namely that most people assume increasing assertiveness can yield positive social and instrumental benefits up to a point, beyond which benefits decline. However, people vary in how assertive this perceived optimal point is. These individual differences in expectancies are linked in 4 studies to assertiveness, including self-reported assertiveness, rated behavioral preferences in assorted interpersonal conflict scenarios, partner ratings of participants' behavior in a face-to-face dyadic negotiation, and work colleague ratings of participants' assertiveness in the workplace. In each case, the link between expectancies and behavior remained after controlling for values. The results suggest a place for expectancies alongside values in psychological models of interpersonal assertiveness. Keywords: assertiveness, competitiveness, expectancies, conflict, interpersonal schemas

Individuals engage in status self-enhancement when they form an overly positive perception of their status in a group. We argue that status self-enhancement incurs social costs and, therefore, most individuals perceive their status accurately. In contrast, theories of positive illusions suggest status self-enhancement is beneficial for the individual and that most individuals overestimate their status. We found supportive evidence for our hypotheses in a social relations analysis of laboratory groups, an experiment that manipulated status self-enhancement, and a study of real-world groups. Individuals who engaged in status self-enhancement were liked less by others and paid less for their work. Moreover, individuals tended to perceive their status highly accurately. Mediation analyses showed that status self-enhancers were socially punished because they were seen as disruptive to group processes. Keywords: status; hierarchy; self-perception; self-enhancement; positive illusions

The authors propose that individual differences in assertiveness play a critical role in perceptions about leaders. In contrast to prior work that focused on linear effects, the authors argue that individuals seen either as markedly low in assertiveness or as high in assertiveness are generally appraised as less effective leaders. Moreover, the authors claim that observers' perceptions of leaders as having too much or too little assertiveness are widespread. The authors linked the curvilinear effects of assertiveness to underlying tradeoffs between social outcomes (a high level of assertiveness worsens relationships) and instrumental outcomes (a low level of assertiveness limits goal achievement). In 3 studies, the authors used qualitative and quantitative approaches and found support for their account. The results suggest that assertiveness (and other constructs with nonlinear effects) might have been overlooked in research that has been focused on identifying what makes a leader rather than on identifying what breaks a leader. Keywords: assertiveness, leadership, interpersonal relations, individual differences, curvilinear effects

The authors argue that high self-monitors may be more sensitive to the status implications of social exchange and more effective in managing their exchange relations to elicit conferrals of status than low self-monitors. Ina series of studies, they found that high self-monitors were more accurate in perceiving the status dynamics involved both in a set of fictitious exchange relations and in real relationships involving other members of their social group. Further, high self-monitors elevated their social status among their peers by establishing a reputation as a generous exchange partner. Specifically, they were more likely than low self-monitors to be sought out for help and to refrain from asking others for help. This behavior provides one explanation for why high self-monitors acquire elevated status among their peers--they are more attuned to status dynamics in exchange relations and adapt their behavior in ways that elicit status. Keywords: self-monitoring, exchange relations, helping, social status

Most models of how perceivers infer the widespread attitudes and qualities of social groups revolve around either the self (social projection, false consensus) or stereotypes (stereotyping). The author suggests people rely on both of these inferential strategies, with perceived general similarity moderating their use, leading to increased levels of projection and decreased levels of stereotyping. Three studies featuring existing individual differences in perceived similarity as well as manipulated perceptions supported the predictions, with similarity yielding increased projection to, and decreased stereotyping of, various in-groups and out-groups. Evidence that projection and stereotyping may serve as inferential alternatives also emerged. The model and accompanying results have implications for research on social comparison and projection, stereotyping and prejudice, and social inference.

Mental state inferences--judgments about what others think, want, and feel--are central to social life. Models of 'mind reading' have considered main effects, including social projection and stereotyping, but have not specified the conditions that govern when these tools will be used. This article develops such a model, claiming that when perceivers assume an initial general sense of similarity to a target, they engage in greater projection and less stereotyping. Three studies featuring manipulations of similarity support this claim. Moreover, reaction time results shed light on the mechanisms underlying these effects. The proposed model gives a new view of the mind reader's tool kit and, more generally, raises questions about moderators of stereotyping and projection in social judgment.

How do people react to those who have helped them? The authors propose that a recipient's evaluation of a helper's intentions and the recipient's own attitudes about future interactions with the helper depend partly on the recipient's perceptions of how the helper decided to assist: on the basis of affect, of role, or of cost-benefit calculation. When a recipient perceives that the decision was based on affect (i. e., positive feelings about him or her), he or she will be more inclined toward future interaction and reciprocation than if he or she perceives the decision as based on role or cost-benefit calculation. It is proposed that these 'decision modes' signal the helper's underlying attitudes about the recipient, which in turn, clarify their relationship. A boundary is also identified: The negative impact of apparent cost-benefit thinking is greatest when the amount of help provided is small. Predictions are confirmed in four studies of actual and experimentally manipulated helping episodes. Keywords: helping; prosocial behavior; person perception; social exchange; decision modes

An inferential account of impression maintenance is proposed across Big Five personality dimensions. It is suggested that impressions in these five domains are differentially stable over the course of acquaintance.