Interpersonal Processes Involving Impression Regulation and Management

Schlenker, Barry R.; Weigold, Michael F.

doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.001025

Cited by 432 publications

(160 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

151

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Implicitly or explicitly, people form metaperceptions , or beliefs about how other people perceive them. Metaperceptions powerfully shape how people feel about themselves and inform decisions such as how to behave as well as who to befriend, who to form professional alliances with, and who to pursue as a romantic partner (Elfenbein, Eisenkraft, & Ding, 2009; Leary, 2005; Murray, Holmes, MacDonald, & Ellsworth, 1998; Pfeifer et al, 2009; Schlenker & Weigold, 1992). Thus, metaperceptions provide an implicit map that people use to navigate their social worlds.…”

Section: The Accuracy Of Metaperceptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Metaperception in Personality Disorders: Do People with Personality Problems Know How Others Experience Their Personality?

Carlson¹,

Oltmanns²

2015

Journal of Personality Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do people with personality problems have insight into how others experience them? In a large community sample of adults (N = 641), the authors examined whether people with personality disorder (PD) symptoms were aware of how a close acquaintance (i.e., a romantic partner, family member, or friend) perceived them by measuring participants’ metaperceptions and self-perceptions as well as their acquaintance’s impression of them on Five-Factor Model traits. Compared to people with fewer PD symptoms, people with more PD symptoms tended to be less accurate and tended to overestimate the negativity of the impressions they made on their acquaintance, especially for the traits of extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Interestingly, these individuals did not necessarily assume that their acquaintance perceived them as they perceived themselves; instead, poor insight was likely due to their inability to detect or utilize information other than their self-perceptions. Implications for the conceptualization, measurement, and treatment of PDs are discussed.

show abstract

Section: The Accuracy Of Metaperceptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Metaperception in Personality Disorders: Do People with Personality Problems Know How Others Experience Their Personality?

Carlson¹,

Oltmanns²

2015

Journal of Personality Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…RESPONSIBILITY EXCHANGE THEORY However, our work differs from most previous models in that the goal of the speaker is not the lower-order goal of simply being understood-we assume that part-but instead to manage one's impression and to self-present in a way that is consistent with one's goals in the situation (Baumeister, 1982;Goffman, 1959Goffman, , 1967Schlenker & Weigold, 1992). Identifying goals other than being understood helps to explain why communication often violates Grice's maxims of conversation to be simple and efficient, as with polite and indirect speech (P. Brown & Levinson, 1987; J. J.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Brown & Levinson, 1987;Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002;Fiske, Xu, Cuddy, & Glick, 1999;Goffman, 1959Goffman, , 1967Leary & Allen, 2011;Schlenker & Weigold, 1992); theoretical work on signaling from evolutionary biology (e.g., Grafen, 1990;Maynard-Smith & Harper, 2003;Zahavi, 1975;Zahavi & Zahavi, 1997); and empirical and theoretical work on language and communication in cognitive psychology (e.g., Goodman & Stuhlmüller, 2013;Grice, 1975;Pinker, 2011;Pinker, Nowak, & Lee, 2008;van Rooij, 2003;Yoon, Tessler, Goodman, & Frank, 2016). We bring these various streams of research together in a novel way to produce new insights.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Thanking, Apologizing, Bragging, and Blaming: Responsibility Exchange Theory and the Currency of Communication

Chaudhry¹,

Loewenstein²

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the time we are children, we are taught to say “thank you” and “I’m sorry.” These communications are central to many social interactions, and the failure to say them often leads to conflict in relationships. Research has documented that, alongside the impact they can have on relationships, apologies and thanks can also impact material outcomes as small as restaurant tips and as significant as settlements of medical malpractice lawsuits. But, it is trivial to utter the words; how can such “cheap talk” carry so much value? In this paper, we propose a “responsibility exchange theory” that explains why these communications are not costless, and which draws connections between four forms of communication that have not previously been connected: thanking, apologizing, bragging, and blaming. All four of these communications relay information about credit or blame, and thus introduce image-based costs and benefits for both the communicator and the recipient of communication: Each of the four communications involves a tradeoff between appearing competent and appearing warm. By formalizing these social psychological insights with a utility-based approach to modeling communication, and by applying game theoretic analysis, we offer new insights about social communication. We test several of the model’s novel predictions about strategic communication in two experiments: The first involves hypothetical choices in a scenario study, and the second involves real choices in a live interaction. We end with a discussion of the theory’s place in the literature and consider extended predictions and applications as examples of future directions for research.

show abstract

“…Because recognition renders desired behaviors more visible (Fisher & Ackerman, 1998), it acts as a symbolic reward (Grant, 2012;Mickel & Barron, 2008). We theorize that the symbolic aspect of being recognized for one's prosocial behavior is relevant for explaining when such behaviors are more or less likely to occur as a function of moral identity because many identity theories suggest there are both public and private aspects of the self (Erikson 1964;Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975;Schlenker & Weigold, 1992). In their model of moral identity, Aquino and Reed (2002) referred to these two aspects as symbolization and internalization, respectively.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

When moral identity symbolization motivates prosocial behavior: The role of recognition and moral identity internalization.

Winterich

Aquino

Mittal

et al. 2013

Journal of Applied Psychology

180

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the role of moral identity symbolization in motivating prosocial behaviors. We propose a 3-way interaction of moral identity symbolization, internalization, and recognition to predict prosocial behavior. When moral identity internalization is low, we hypothesize that high moral identity symbolization motivates recognized prosocial behavior due to the opportunity to present one's moral characteristics to others. In contrast, when moral identity internalization is high, prosocial behavior is motivated irrespective of the level of symbolization and recognition. Two studies provide support for this pattern examining volunteering of time. Our results provide a framework for predicting prosocial behavior by combining the 2 dimensions of moral identity with the situational factor of recognition.

show abstract

Interpersonal Processes Involving Impression Regulation and Management

Cited by 432 publications

References 43 publications

The Role of Metaperception in Personality Disorders: Do People with Personality Problems Know How Others Experience Their Personality?

The Role of Metaperception in Personality Disorders: Do People with Personality Problems Know How Others Experience Their Personality?

Thanking, Apologizing, Bragging, and Blaming: Responsibility Exchange Theory and the Currency of Communication

When moral identity symbolization motivates prosocial behavior: The role of recognition and moral identity internalization.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About