Two faces of the self: Actor-self perspective and observer-self perspective are differentially related to agency versus communion

Hauke, Nicole; Abele, Andrea E.

doi:10.1080/15298868.2019.1584582

Cited by 23 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, according to DPM-AC the agent wants to pursue his/her goals efficiently [25,72], and we think that the high perceived ease of use of communal AV allows for such efficiency. Nevertheless, these results are inconsistent with other studies where goal-oriented people valued agency more than communion [72,81,83,87]. Based on the aforementioned self-congruity effect [90], we are convinced that in communal AV advertisement condition goal-oriented people (agent's perspective) value something very positively and this resulted in a greater acceptance.…”

Section: Theoretical Contributioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

How different autonomous vehicle presentation influences its acceptance: Is a communal car better than agentic one?

Hryniewicz

Grzegorczyk

2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public acceptance of autonomous vehicles (AVs) is still questionable. Nevertheless, it can be influenced by proper communication strategy. Therefore, our research focuses on (1) the type of information concerning AVs that consumers seek and (2) how to communicate this technology in order to increase its acceptance. In the first study (N = 711) topic modeling showed that the most sought for information concern the communion and the agency of AVs. In the second, experimental study (N = 303) we measured the participants' fear and goal-orientation in relation to AVs. Then, after the manipulation of the AV advertisement (imbued with communal vs agentic content), technology acceptance components (perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness and behavioral intention) were verified. The comparative analysis of the structural model estimates showed that the both participants' fear and goal-orientation in relation to AVs were associated much more with the acceptance components of the communal AV rather than the agentic one. Therefore, people want to know both whether AVs are communal and agentic, but they are more prone to accept a communal AV than agentic one.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Contributioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

How different autonomous vehicle presentation influences its acceptance: Is a communal car better than agentic one?

Hryniewicz

Grzegorczyk

2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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). People feel more reputation threat from attacks on their morality than their friendliness, and they feel more identity threat from attacks on their assertiveness than their ability (Hauke & Abele, 2019a.…”

Section: Distinguishing Facets Of Agency and Communion Helps To Refinmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reflecting one common dimension, DPM explicitly defines Communion as including facets of friendliness and morality, and Agency as including facets of ability and assertiveness, validated across languages (Abele et al, , 2016Abele & Hauke, 2019;Hauke & Abele, 2019a. SCM and DCM do not explicitly distinguish between these facets of their focal dimensions, but the operationalizations they use do contain them, and increase predictive validity (Fiske, 2018b;Yzerbyt, 2018; see also Carrier, Louvet, Chauvin, & Rohmer, 2014a;Carrier, Louvet, & Rohmer, 2014b;Kervyn, Fiske, & Yzerbyt, 2015).…”

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

confidence: 99%

“…Studies find that Morality and Sociability covary slightly more than either does with Competence, which supports the proposed facet logic. 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.…”

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

confidence: 99%

“…The DPM resolves this controversy by noting that people can consider the self from the perspective of the acting self (goal pursuit: Vertical weighs more) and/or from the perspective of the self as perceived by others (reputation monitoring; Horizontal weighs more). Reputation monitoring is closely related to Horizontal (particularly morality, but also friendliness), but less to Vertical: People generally rate their own Horizontal (morality and friendliness) higher than their Vertical (ability and assertiveness; Hauke & Abele, 2019a, Abele & Wojciszke, 2007; groups deny entry and withdraw reputation, resources, or even membership if uncertain about a member's high rating on Horizontal (Van der Lee et al, 2017).…”

Section: Subjective Weight Weight Reflects Subjective Importance Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 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

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

Two faces of the self: Actor-self perspective and observer-self perspective are differentially related to agency versus communion

Cited by 23 publications

References 53 publications

How different autonomous vehicle presentation influences its acceptance: Is a communal car better than agentic one?

How different autonomous vehicle presentation influences its acceptance: Is a communal car better than agentic one?

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About