Interpersonal and Noninterpersonal Interactions, Interpersonal Motives, and the Effect of Frustrated Motives

Abstract

A new circumplex model of interpersonal interaction emphasizes the motives that drive interpersonal behaviors and the negative affect (such as anger) that occurs when a strongly activated motive is frustrated. This study examined the model experimentally by varying conditions designed to activate and frustrate interpersonal motives. One hundred twenty-nine students engaged in text-based discussions using a computer. Three factors were varied: (a) activation of interpersonal motives--participants believed the interaction was interpersonal (with a human) or noninterpersonal (with a computer); (b) individual differences in motive activation--assertive and nonassertive participants were compared (strong vs. weak motive to influence others); and (c) level of frustration of activated motives--the "partner's" messages contained dominating or nondominating language. Participants who believed their interaction was interpersonal produced more interpersonal behaviors of various types. Assertive participants who interacted with a dominating and apparently human partner produced a disproportionate amount of hostility, indicating anger ascribed to frustrated motives.

Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications.

“…Consistent with this line of thought, Tiedens (2001) found that a person who expresses anger is accorded greater status by observers. Schectman and Horowitz (2006) found that assertive people who believed themselves to be interacting with a dominating partner expressed anger in response. In short, we do not see a great deal of difficulty in pointing to desired conditions that are sometimes disrupted or interfered with, resulting in anger (see also Frijda, 2007, …”

Narcissism: An Integrative Synthesis and Dominance Complementarity Model

“…In other words, friendly behavior begets friendly behavior and hostile behavior invokes hostile behavior, but dominant behavior is more likely to invite submissive behavior. In addition, interpersonal complementarity (i.e., "sameness on the affiliation dimension and oppositeness on the dominance dimension"; Sadler and colleagues, 2011, p. 126) leads to more satisfying and harmonious relationships (Dryer & Horowitz, 1997;Kiesler, 1996;Shechtman & Horowitz, 2006). For example, in a laboratory experiment, participants were more satisfied when they were paired with an experimental confederate who expressed dominance levels opposing their own expressed dominance goals (Dryer & Horowitz, 1997).…”

“…For example, in a laboratory experiment, participants were more satisfied when they were paired with an experimental confederate who expressed dominance levels opposing their own expressed dominance goals (Dryer & Horowitz, 1997). Similarly, when dominant participants were paired with highly dominant partners, the participants expressed increased anger toward their partners (Shechtman & Horowitz, 2006).…”

Initiating interactions in order to get help: Effects of social framing on people's responses to robots' requests for assistance

“…[16]) to understand robots as social actors. However, Brennan [3], Amalberti et al [1], Fischer [8] and Shechtman & Horrowitz [22] report on considerable differences between speech to computers and speech to other humans even in speech-based computer systems, and Fischer [7] demonstrates considerable interpersonal variation in understanding robots as social actors. Whether language use has a systematic impact on people's understanding of the robot's actions as intentional and on their willingness to assist the robot is thus open.…”