Patterns of self‐regulation and the Big Five

The authors examined relations between self‐regulatory properties of personality (ego‐control and ego‐resilience) and the Big Five. Ego‐control and ego‐resilience were independent predictors of each Big Five dimension. Additionally, cluster analysis suggested four replicable ‘types’. Participants in the first (largest) cluster reported the highest levels of resilience and moderately low levels of control. The second cluster reported above‐average resilience and high control. The third cluster reported below‐average resilience and extremely low control. The final cluster reported very low resilience and high control. The four clusters differed systematically in their Big Five profiles. These findings suggest that self‐regulatory processes are co‐ordinated with other basic personality dimensions, and attest to the utility of conducting both variable‐centred and person‐centred analyses. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Toward a more complete understanding of the reciprocity of liking effect

It is proposed that the reciprocation of interpersonal attraction is a multifaceted process involving affective, cognitive, and behavioral elements, and that reciprocation can be interpreted using interdependence theory. Two studies investigated whether expressed attraction implies benevolent intentions and whether such intentions are differentially critical to reciprocated affective and behavioral attraction. Study 1 (N = 52) demonstrated that (a) an admirer's expressed attraction suggests an admirer's benevolent intentions toward the target, and (b) that benevolent intentions mediate reciprocated affective and behavioral attraction. Study 2 (N = 173) found a difference between affective and behavioral attraction: affective attraction was reciprocated in all cases; but behavioral attraction was not reciprocated when stated behavioral intentions were not consistent with intentions implied by the expressed attraction. Results support an interdependence theory perspective as particularly important for understanding why and what type of reciprocated attraction will occur. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Interindividual‐intergroup discontinuity as a joint function of acting as a group and interacting with a group

An experiment assessed the prisoner's dilemma game (PDG) choices of a set of three persons who interacted with another supposed set of three persons. There were four conditions: (1) group‐on‐group (both three‐person sets constrained by a majority vote), (2) group‐on‐one (only own three‐person set constrained by a majority vote), (3) one‐on‐group (only other three‐person set constrained by a majority vote), (4) one‐on‐one (neither three‐person set constrained by a majority vote). The four conditions were compared with three orthogonal contrasts. Consistent with the assumption that interindividual interactions are less competitive than interactions involving groups, the first contrast indicated that there were fewer competitive choices in the one‐on‐one condition than in the other three conditions pooled. Consistent with the assumption that competitiveness can flow either from acting as a group or interacting with a group, the second contrast found no significant difference between the group‐on‐one and one‐on‐group conditions. Finally, consistent with the assumption that the interindividual‐intergroup discontinuity effect is a joint function of acting as a group and interacting with a group, the third contrast revealed that there were more competitive choices in the group‐on‐group condition than in the one‐on‐group and group‐on‐one conditions pooled. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Interindividual–intergroup discontinuity in the prisoner’s dilemma game: How common fate,proximity, and similarity affect intergroup competition

In two experiments with the PDG we manipulated the Campbell (1958), or Wertheimer (1923), indices of entitativity (common fate, proximity, and similarity) to examine when a set of individuals interacts with another set of individuals in the competitive manner that is characteristic of group-on-group interactions. Experiment 1 found that interactions between two 3-person sets were more competitive when participants within each set shared (vs. did not share) common fate. In Experiment 2, the Wertheimer–Campbell indices were manipulated for one 3-person set only (targets). Participants in the other 3-person set were sequestered in separate rooms (observers). Observers as well as targets were more competitive when targets shared (vs. did not share) common fate. Path analyses in both experiments supported the idea that common fate increases competition via increased own-set entitativity and subsequent greed, and via increased other-set entitativity and subsequent fear. We found no consistent evidence for the possible roles of proximity and similarity.     

Explanations of interindividual – intergroup discontinuity: A review of the evidence

The authors review and evaluate various explanations for the tendency of intergroup relations to be more competitive, or less cooperative, than interindividual relations (the discontinuity effect). They distinguish between two general perspectives, each comprising a set of explanations for the discontinuity effect. The fear and greed perspective assumes that intergroup relations are characterised by greater fear and greed than are interindividual relations. The group decision-making perspective assumes a crucial role for group discussion in facilitating rational comprehension of mixed-motive situations. In general, explanations from the fear and greed perspective were found to be more consistent with the empirical record than explanations from the group decision-making perspective. The authors propose that a complete understanding of the discontinuity effect is yet to be achieved.     

Introducing the GASP scale: a new measure of guilt and shame proneness

Although scholars agree that moral emotions are critical for deterring unethical and antisocial behavior, there is disagreement about how 2 prototypical moral emotions--guilt and shame--should be defined, differentiated, and measured. We addressed these issues by developing a new assessment--the Guilt and Shame Proneness scale (GASP)--that measures individual differences in the propensity to experience guilt and shame across a range of personal transgressions. The GASP contains 2 guilt subscales that assess negative behavior-evaluations and repair action tendencies following private transgressions and 2 shame subscales that assess negative self-evaluations (NSEs) and withdrawal action tendencies following publically exposed transgressions. Both guilt subscales were highly correlated with one another and negatively correlated with unethical decision making. Although both shame subscales were associated with relatively poor psychological functioning (e.g., neuroticism, personal distress, low self-esteem), they were only weakly correlated with one another, and their relationships with unethical decision making diverged. Whereas shame-NSE constrained unethical decision making, shame-withdraw did not. Our findings suggest that differentiating the tendency to make NSEs following publically exposed transgressions from the tendency to hide or withdraw from public view is critically important for understanding and measuring dispositional shame proneness. The GASP's ability to distinguish these 2 classes of responses represents an important advantage of the scale over existing assessments. Although further validation research is required, the present studies are promising in that they suggest the GASP has the potential to be an important measurement tool for detecting individuals susceptible to corruption and unethical behavior.     

Use of nonsexist pronouns as a function of one's feminist orientation

Subjects of both sexes were shown several sentences that contained a blank space where a third-person singular pronoun should be, and were asked to indicate what pronoun they would choose to complete the sentence. Some sentences referred to traditionally masculine positions (e.g., lawyer), some referred to traditionally feminine positions (e.g., secretary), and some referred to positions with generic titles (e.g., spokesman). As hypothesized, subjects with high scores on Spence and Helmreich's (1972) Attitudes toward Women Scale (AWS) chose nonsexist pronouns more frequently on all three types of sentences than did subjects with low AWS scores. Less feminist trends in the subjects' pronoun choices are discussed.