Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior.

Two studies examine complementarity (vs. mimicry) of dominant and submissive nonverbal behaviors. In the first study, participants interacted with a confederate who displayed either dominance (through postural expansion) or submission (through postural constriction). On average, participants exposed to a dominant confederate decreased their postural stance, whereas participants exposed to a submissive confederate increased their stance. Further, participants with complementing responses (dominance in response to submission and submission in response to dominance) liked their partner more and were more comfortable than those who mimicked. In the second study, complementarity and mimicry were manipulated, and complementarity resulted in more liking and comfort than mimicry. The findings speak to the likelihood of hierarchical differentiation (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Assimilation for Affiliation and Contrast for Control: Complementary Self-Construals.

People have knowledge about relationships (i.e., relational schemas) that is based on their experiences. Because most people have experience with complementary behavior (interaction partners behaving similarly in terms of affiliation but oppositely in terms of control), they expect complementary behavior in their relationships. Like other beliefs about relationships, expectations of complementarity affect self-construal. The authors provide evidence for complementary self-construal; people assimilate to relevant relationship partners on the affiliation dimension and contrast on the control dimension. Consistent with the proposed role of relationship knowledge in these effects, complementary self-construal was moderated by the familiarity of the target, whether people focused on their relationship with or the appearance of the target, and whether the context was relevant for the interpersonal dimension. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing.

The authors argued that emotions characterized by certainty appraisals promote heuristic processing whereas emotions characterized by uncertainty appraisals result in systematic processing. The 1st experiment demonstrated that the certainty associated with an emotion affects the certainty experienced in subsequent situations. The next 3 experiments investigated effects on processing of emotions associated with certainty and uncertainty. Compared with emotions associated with uncertainty, emotions associated with certainty resulted in greater reliance on the expertise of a source of a persuasive message in Experiment 2, more stereotyping in Experiment 3, and less attention to argument quality in Experiment 4. In contrast to previous theories linking valence and processing, these findings suggest that the certainty appraisal content of emotions is also important in determining whether people engage in systematic or heuristic processing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An unconscious desire for hierarchy? The motivated perception of dominance complementarity in task partners.

In 6 studies, the authors examined the perception of dominance complementarity, which is the perception of a target as different from the self in terms of dominance. The authors argue that these perceptions are motivated by the desire for positive task relationships. Because dominance complementarity bodes well for task-oriented relationships, seeing dominance complementarity allows one to be optimistic about a work relationship. As evidence that perceptions of dominance complementarity are an instance of motivated perception, the authors show that complementary perceptions occur when participants think about or expect task-oriented relationships with the target and that perceptions of dominance complementarity are enhanced when individuals care about the task component of the relationship. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Anger and advancement versus sadness and subjugation: The effect of negative emotion expressions on social status conferral.

Four studies examined status conferral (decisions about who should be granted status). The studies show that people confer more status to targets who express anger than to targets who express sadness. In the 1st study, participants supported President Clinton more when they viewed him expressing anger about the Monica Lewinsky scandal than when they saw him expressing sadness about the scandal. This effect was replicated with an unknown politician in Study 2. The 3rd study showed that status conferral in a company was correlated with peers' ratings of the workers' anger. In the final study, participants assigned a higher status position and a higher salary to a job candidate who described himself as angry as opposed to sad. Furthermore, Studies 2–4 showed that anger expressions created the impression that the expresser was competent and that these perceptions mediated the relationship between emotional expressions and status conferral. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)