Interpersonal competition can cause individuating processes.

Ruscher, Janet B.; Fiske, Susan T.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.832

Cited by 117 publications

(115 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, people have been found to make more dispositional inferences about others in competitive contexts (Ruscher & Fiske, 1990) and to like cooperative partners more than competitive ones (e.g., Fiske & Ruscher, 1993). Surprisingly, however, no research to date has examined whether interdependence influences projective tendencies about unknown targets.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anticipated cooperation vs. competition moderates interpersonal projection

Toma

Yzerbyt

Corneille

2010

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anticipated cooperation vs. competition moderates interpersonal projection

Toma

Yzerbyt

Corneille

2010

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Further, a perceiver's impression formation motivation is affected by interdependencies between the perceiver and a target. The more that a perceiver depends on a target, the more a perceiver will pay attention to individuating information pertaining to how much and in what ways the target can either help or hurt the perceiver (Rudman, 1998;Ruscher & Fiske, 1990). However, our review indicates that using and relying on stereotypes tends to be the default, and that this can have far-reaching consequences.…”

Section: Integrative Summary: Stereotyping In the Functioning Phasementioning

confidence: 88%

Microdynamics in Diverse Teams: A Review and Integration of the Diversity and Stereotyping Literatures

Dijk

Meyer

Engen

et al. 2017

ANNALS

123

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on the consequences of diversity in teams continues to produce inconsistent results.We review the recent developments in diversity research and identify two shortcomings. First, an understanding of the microdynamics affecting processes and outcomes in diverse teams is lacking. Second, diversity research has tended to treat different social categories as equivalent and thus not considered how members' experiences may be affected by their social category membership. We address these shortcomings by reviewing research on stereotypes, which indicates that stereotypes initiate reinforcing microdynamics among (a) attributions of a target team member's warmth and competence, (b) perceiving members' behavior towards the target team member, and (c) the target team member's behavior. Our review suggests that perceivers' impression formation motivation is the key determinant of the extent to which perceivers continue to treat a target based on categorization. Based on our review, we provide an integrative perspective and corresponding model that outlines these microdynamics of diversity and stereotyping in teams and indicates how stereotyping can benefit as well as harm team functioning. We discuss how this integrative perspective on the microdynamics of diversity and stereotyping in teams relates to the social categorization and the information/decision-making perspective, set a research agenda, and discuss the managerial implications. KeywordsDiversity; Teams; Stereotypes; Microdynamics; Performance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 2 Page 2 of 101 Academy of Management Annals Microdynamics in Diverse Teams: A Review and Integration of the Diversity and Stereotyping LiteraturesGlobalization, demographic changes, and the increased use of teams in contemporary organizations have created a surge in research on the consequences of different team members working together . The many recent meta-analyses on the consequences of team diversity signify the considerable amount of attention that has gone to this field of study (e.g., Bell, 2007; Bell, Villado, Lukasik, Belau, & Briggs, 2011;Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007;Joshi & Roh, 2009;van Dijk, van Engen, & van Knippenberg, 2012). For the past two decades, diversity research has mainly relied on a dual theoretical approach where the social categorization and the information/decision-making perspectives inform answers to the questions why and how diversity affects team performance (Milliken & Martins, 1996; van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004;Williams & O'reilly, 1998). There is much that we have learned from these perspectives, but despite the fact that theories have been advanced and research models have become more sophisticated, so far the main conclusion that has been drawn is that research on the relationship between team diversity and team performance is inconclus...

show abstract

“…Regardless of whether the perception is actually correct or not, consumers often perceive that they are dependent on the assistance of an employee for achieving a positive outcome in an interaction (Cowley 2005). Perceivers that are dependent on another person typically disregard the person's category membership and focus more strongly on the person's individuating attributes (Neuberg and Fiske 1987;Ruscher and Fiske 1990). These effects are found because outcome-dependent perceivers have a much greater need to accurately understand and predict their partner's behavior to obtain the desired outcome than perceivers that are not outcome-dependent (Fiske and Neuberg 1990;Hilton and Darley 1991).…”

Section: Disclosure Of Pseudorelevant Information and Behavior Generamentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of employee behavior on brand personality impressions and brand attitudes

Wentzel

2009

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examines how consumers update their brand personality impressions and brand attitudes after interacting with one of the brand's employees. Drawing on stereotyping theory, the author develops a framework that proposes that the impact of an employee's behavior depends on how the employee is categorized. When the employee is considered primarily as an exemplar of the brand's workforce, his or her behavior is generalized more strongly to the brand. When, however, the employee is judged as a relatively unique individual (i.e., when the employee is subtyped), the behavior is not transferred to the brand to the full extent. The results of three studies provide converging evidence and show that the degree to which consumers subtype an employee is determined by the amount of information they possess about the employee, the extent to which they depend on the employee, and their motivation to form an accurate impression. The findings have direct implications for marketers interested in understanding how employees affect the brands they represent.

show abstract

Interpersonal competition can cause individuating processes.

Cited by 117 publications

References 23 publications

Anticipated cooperation vs. competition moderates interpersonal projection

Anticipated cooperation vs. competition moderates interpersonal projection

Microdynamics in Diverse Teams: A Review and Integration of the Diversity and Stereotyping Literatures

The effect of employee behavior on brand personality impressions and brand attitudes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About