Agency and Communion in Self-Concept and in Self-Esteem

Abele, Andrea E.; Hauke, Nicole

doi:10.4324/9780203703663-5

Cited by 13 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although measurement of the two focal dimensions without facets often satisfies empirical demands (see SCM and DCM research and parts of DPM research), both conceptual/psychometric research (Abele et al, 2016;Kervyn et al, 2013Kervyn et al, , 2015 and hypothesis-testing experimental research (Carrier et al, 2014a(Carrier et al, , 2014bCarrier et al, 2019b;Hauke & Abele, 2019aLeach et al, 2007) have demonstrated that, depending on the research question, differentiating facets leads to more clear-cut results. For instance, DPM research showed that self-esteem relates primarily to the assertiveness facet of agency and somewhat to the morality facet of communion (Abele et al, 2016;Abele & Hauke, 2018; esteem of others relates to the morality facet, but depending on type of target also the ability facet and the friendliness facet (Abele et al, 2016;Abele & Hauke, 2019), which partly aligns with BRM predictions. As an alignment of the five models, we thus suggest that depending on the research question, the four facets should be either integrated into the two focal dimensions Vertical and Horizontal or measured separately.…”

Section: Alignment 1: Number Organization and Definition/labels Of mentioning

confidence: 67%

“…Among the facets, self-esteem relates more to the assertiveness facet than the ability facet, and it relates somewhat to the morality facet, but not to the friendliness facet (Abele et al, 2016;Abele & Hauke, 2018. Positive evaluation of others relates more to Communion than Agency (Wojciszke et al, 2011); but distinguishing the facets, evaluation relates more to the morality than the friendliness facet, and more to the ability than the assertiveness facet (Abele & Hauke, 2019).…”

Section: Distinguishing Facets Of Agency and Communion Helps To Refinmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To resolve confusion regarding these dimensions defined and measured similarly but labeled differently (see operational definitions in Table 1), and to convey that no model can argue that their set of dimension labels is generally more suitable, we propose novel, integrative labels for two focal dimensions of social evaluation (see Table 6). Specifically, we propose The Vertical dimension relates to evaluation of status, prestige, esteem, power, and skill (Abele & Hauke, 2018Abele & Wojciszke, 2007;Carrier, et al, 2014a;Carrier, et al, 2014b;Fiske, 2010;Koch et al, 2016;; see also Schubert, 2005;Mahieu, Corneille, & Yzerbyt, 2014). We label this dimension Vertical because it indicates the relative rank and hierarchical position of social targets, which can move upward or downward.…”

Section: Alignment 1: Number Organization and Definition/labels Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, their predictions differ based on different aspects studied as well as on different operationalizations of the Vertical dimension (focused on the ability facet, BRM; considering both the ability and assertiveness facet, DPM). Many studies find support for the DPM position that the Vertical weighs more heavily than the Horizontal in self-esteem (Abele & Hauke, 2019;Abele et al, 2016;Wojciszke et al, 2011; for a review see Abele & Hauke, 2018), and in assessing own behavior .…”

Section: Subjective Weight Weight Reflects Subjective Importance Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In real interactions, actors rate their own behavior more in terms of Agency than receivers do (Abele, Bruckmüller, & Wojciszke, 2014). Self-esteem is more related to Agency than Communion (Abele & Hauke, 2018;Wojciszke, Baryla, Parzuchowski, Szymkow, & Abele, 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Navigating the social world: Shared horizontal and vertical evaluative dimensions

Abele-Brehm¹,

Ellemers²,

S³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Central to human sociality, evaluation occurs at personal, interpersonal, group, and intergroup levels, with competing theories and evidence. Five current social-evaluation models engage here in adversarial alignment, to identify common conceptual ground, ongoing controversies, and continuing agendas for work on social evaluation: Dual Perspective Model (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007); Behavioral Regulation Model (Leach, Ellemers, & Barreto, 2007); Dimensional Compensation Model (Yzerbyt, Provost & Corneille, 2005); Stereotype Content Model (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002); and Agency-Beliefs-Communion Model (Koch, Imhoff, Dotsch, Unkelbach, & Alves, 2016). Each model has distinctive focal domains, theoretical roots, premises, and evidence. Controversies arise on the number, definition, and labeling of dimensions, their organization, their relative priority, and their relationship. A new alignment addresses these controversies. Two fundamental dimensions are Vertical (agency, competence, “getting ahead”) and Horizontal (communion, warmth, “getting along”); they respectively have facets of ability and assertiveness (Vertical) and friendliness and morality (Horizontal). Depending on context, a third dimension is conservative versus progressive Beliefs. Dimensions’ priority depends on the criterion (processing speed, pragmatic diagnosticity, subjective weight) and on moderators. Relationships between dimensions are predictably positive, orthogonal, negative, or curvilinear, depending on specific comparisons and task demands. Functions vary (e.g., comparison, accuracy, esteem, interaction) and depend on identifiable contexts. Processes (catalysts, antecedents, and consequences) depend on degree and types of interdependence. Integrating the models, this adversarial alignment generates new research directions and pragmatic functional implications.

show abstract

Section: Alignment 1: Number Organization and Definition/labels Of mentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Distinguishing Facets Of Agency and Communion Helps To Refinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Alignment 1: Number Organization and Definition/labels Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Subjective Weight Weight Reflects Subjective Importance Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Navigating the social world: Shared horizontal and vertical evaluative dimensions

Abele-Brehm¹,

Ellemers²,

S³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparing the facets of the big two in global evaluation of self versus other people

Abele

Hauke

2019

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Big Two of agency and communion can be divided into the facets of agency‐assertiveness, agency‐competence, communion‐morality, and communion‐warmth. The present research studies how these facets are related to global evaluation of self versus others. In five studies we tested whether self‐evaluation is reliably related to agency‐assertiveness (H1), and evaluation of others to communion‐morality (H2). Participants had to describe themselves (or a specific other person) on the facets and later to rate their self‐evaluation (or other‐evaluation). Supporting hypotheses, Studies 1, 3, and 4 showed that agency‐assertiveness was reliably related to self‐evaluation (Study 4: also agency‐competence). Studies 2–5 showed that communion‐morality was reliably related to evaluation of an acquaintance, but agency‐competence (Studies 3 and 5) and communion‐warmth (Study 2) were also important. We conclude that supporting H1, agency‐assertiveness is particularly important for self‐evaluation, whereas partly supporting H2, evaluation of others is associated with communion‐morality, but also agency‐competence and communion‐warmth.

show abstract

MindMiner: Uncovering linguistic markers of mind perception as a new lens to understand consumer–smart object relationships

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior research revealed a striking heterogeneity of how consumers view smart objects, from seeing them as helpful partners to merely a useful tool. We draw on mind perception theory to assess whether the attribution of mental states to smart objects reveals differences in consumer–smart object relationships and device usage. We train a language model to unobtrusively predict mind perception in smart objects from consumer‐generated text. We provide a rich set of interpretable linguistic markers for mind perception, drawing on a diverse collection of text‐mining techniques, and demonstrate that greater mind perception is associated with expressing a more communal (vs. instrumental) relationship with the device and using it more expansively. We find converging evidence for these associations using over 20,000 real‐world customer reviews and also provide causal evidence that inducing a more communal (vs. instrumental) relationship with a smart object enhances mind perception and in turn increases the number of tasks consumers engage in with the device. These findings have important implications for the role of mind perception as a novel lens to study consumer–smart object relationships. We offer an easy‐to‐use web interface to access our language model using researchers own data or to fine‐tune the model to entirely new domains.

show abstract

Agency and Communion in Self-Concept and in Self-Esteem

Cited by 13 publications

References 1 publication

Navigating the social world: Shared horizontal and vertical evaluative dimensions

Navigating the social world: Shared horizontal and vertical evaluative dimensions

Comparing the facets of the big two in global evaluation of self versus other people

MindMiner: Uncovering linguistic markers of mind perception as a new lens to understand consumer–smart object relationships

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About