Binds and bounds of communion: Effects of interpersonal values on assumed similarity of self and others.

Abstract

Assumed similarity refers to ascribing similar attributes to the self and others. Because self-other similarity facilitates communion, people who value communion should be prone to assume self-other similarity; but because self-other similarity also evokes obligation, they may be prone to assume similarity only with others with whom they are or would feel comfortable being interconnected. We tested these hypotheses in 5 studies (total N = 1,709). In Study 1, students indicated their political preferences and estimated other students' preferences. In Studies 2-5, students described their personality and the personalities of the following targets: actual or imagined romantic partners in Study 2; ingroup members (students from the respondents' university) and outgroup members (students from a foreign university) in Studies 3-4; and specific liked and disliked others in Study 5. As hypothesized, people with stronger communal values were more likely to assume self-other similarity with liked others, romantic partners, and ingroup members, but not with disliked others and outgroup members. These effects replicated across different cultures (India, Korea, and the United States) and remained significant when controlling for self-esteem, national identification, and attribute desirability. Although people who valued communion tended to depict themselves and liked and ingroup others in relatively normative (typical) ways, which partially explained assumptions of similarity and indicated that those assumptions were to some extent accurate, communal values continued to predict distinctive self-other similarity or "false consensus" even after controlling for the normative prevalence of attributes.

Differentiating Dark Triad Traits Within and Across Interpersonal Circumplex Surfaces

“…In the current study, Cronbach’s α for each octant ranged from .73 (PA) to .85 (LM) with a mean α of .80. Research shows the CSIV to have a robust circumplex structure and supports its construct validity (Acton & Revelle, 2002; Locke, 2003; Locke & Christensen, 2007; Locke, Craig, Baik, & Gohil, 2012; Thomas, Kirchmann, Suess, Bräutigam, & Strauss, 2012).…”

An Integrative Model of Social Identification

“…From the Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (Brewer, 1991), we know that belongingness needs are fulfilled through self-stereotyping. Work by Locke, Craig, Baik, and Gohil (2012) showed that high belongingness needs result in strong projection of personal preferences onto others. Moreover, in recent unpublished data, we found that the need to belong was positively related to both self-anchoring and self-stereotyping (Van Veelen, Hansen, & Otten, 2015).…”

Agentic and Communal Social Motives

“…Social comparisons are not dispassionate assessments; they are social acts shaped by social motives. For example, studies have found that people with stronger communal motives are particularly likely to believe that close others and ingroup members are similar to the self (Locke, Craig, Baik, & Gohil, ), feel happy and connected after noticing similarities between the self and others (Locke, ), judge upward and downward comparisons (that locate oneself below or above others) as harmful (Locke, ), and feel discomfort with being the target of upward comparisons (Zell & Exline, ).…”