Supplemental Material for Individual Differences in Fundamental Social Motives

2015 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Social Motives

scholarly journals Stable distribution of reciprocity motives in a population

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen M. van Baar ◽  
Felix H. Klaassen ◽  
Filippo Ricci ◽  
Luke J. Chang ◽  
Alan G. Sanfey
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Stable Distribution ◽  
Subjective Experience ◽  
Social Preference ◽  
Game Studies ◽  
Trust Game ◽  
Social Motives ◽  
Psychological Mechanisms ◽  
Modeling Analysis ◽  
Relative Prevalence

Abstract Evolutionary models show that human cooperation can arise through direct reciprocity relationships. However, it remains unclear which psychological mechanisms proximally motivate individuals to reciprocate. Recent evidence suggests that the psychological motives for choosing to reciprocate trust differ between individuals, which raises the question whether these differences have a stable distribution in a population or are rather an artifact of the experimental task. Here, we combine data from three independent trust game studies to find that the relative prevalence of different reciprocity motives is highly stable across participant samples. Furthermore, the distribution of motives is relatively unaffected by changes to the salient features of the experimental paradigm. Finally, the motive classification assigned by our computational modeling analysis corresponds to the participants’ own subjective experience of their psychological decision process, and no existing models of social preference can account for the observed individual differences in reciprocity motives. These findings support the view that reciprocal decision-making is not just regulated by individual differences in 'pro-social’ versus ‘pro-self’ tendencies, but also by trait-like differences across several alternative pro-social motives, whose distribution in a population is stable.

Individual differences in fundamental social motives.

2016 ◽  
Vol 110 (6) ◽  
pp. 887-907 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Neel ◽  
Douglas T. Kenrick ◽  
Andrew Edward White ◽  
Steven L. Neuberg
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Social Motives

Communal and Agentic Interpersonal and Intergroup Motives Predict Preferences for Status Versus Power

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth D. Locke ◽  
Sonja Heller
Keyword(s):  
Job Satisfaction ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Social Motives ◽  
Workplace Power ◽  
Interpersonal Motives

Seven studies involving 1,343 participants showed how circumplex models of social motives can help explain individual differences in preferences for status (having others’ admiration) versus power (controlling valuable resources). Studies 1 to 3 and 7 concerned interpersonal motives in workplace contexts, and found that stronger communal motives (to have mutual trust, support, and cooperation) predicted being more attracted to status (but not power) and achieving more workplace status, while stronger agentic motives (to be firm, decisive, and influential) predicted being more attracted to and achieving more workplace power, and experiencing a stronger connection between workplace power and job satisfaction. Studies 4 to 6 found similar effects for intergroup motives: Stronger communal motives predicted wanting one’s ingroup (e.g., country) to have status—but not power—relative to other groups. Finally, most people preferred status over power, and this was especially true for women, which was partially explained by women having stronger communal motives.

scholarly journals Stationary distribution of moral strategies in a population

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen M van Baar ◽  
Felix H. Klaassen ◽  
Filippo Ricci ◽  
Luke J. Chang ◽  
Alan Sanfey
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Stationary Distribution ◽  
Subjective Experience ◽  
Social Preference ◽  
Social Motives ◽  
Psychological Mechanisms ◽  
Modeling Analysis ◽  
Relative Prevalence ◽  
Social Decision Making ◽  
Strategy Classification

Evolutionary models show that human cooperation can arise through direct reciprocity relationships. However, it remains largely unclear which psychological mechanisms may proximally motivate an individual to reciprocate. Recent evidence demonstrates that psychological motives for reciprocal choices (i.e., moral strategies) differ between individuals, which raises the question whether these differences have a stationary distribution in a population or are rather an artifact of the experimental task. Here, we combine data from three independent studies and participant samples to find that the relative prevalence of different moral strategies is highly stable across these datasets. Furthermore, the distribution of moral strategies is relatively unaffected by changes to the salient features of the experimental paradigm. Finally, the moral strategy classification assigned by our computational modeling analysis corresponds to the participants’ own subjective experience of their psychological decision process, and no existing models of social preference can account for the observed individual differences in moral strategies. This research supports the view that social decision-making is not just regulated by individual differences in 'pro-social’ versus ‘pro-self’ tendencies, but also by trait-like differences across several alternative pro-social motives, whose distribution in a population is stationary.

Competing Motives in a Pandemic: Interplays Between Fundamental Social Motives and Technology Use in Predicting (Non)Compliance with Social Distancing Guidelines

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitch Brown ◽  
Steven Young ◽  
Donald F. Sacco
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Technology Use ◽  
Physical Contact ◽  
Need To Belong ◽  
Social Motives ◽  
Interpersonal Contact ◽  
Motivational Systems ◽  
Social Distancing ◽  
Utilization Of Technology ◽  
Physical Interactions

During the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals were advised to adhere to various social distancing guidelines to limit physical interpersonal contact. Humans have a suite of adaptations to effectively satisfy belonging needs while avoiding diseased conspecifics, and competition between these motivational systems may explain adherence and resistance to contemporary social distancing guidelines. The current study is a preregistered analysis of data collected during the pandemic investing how individual differences in affiliative and pathogen-avoidant motives differentially predict interest in physical interactions (N=2,409). Heightened germ aversion was predictably associated with less interest in physical interactions during the pandemic with chronic need to belong conversely predicting more interest. Additional analyses revealed utilization of technology satisfied belonging motives that further reduced interest in physical contact. We frame results through a framework of competing fundamental social motives and how this knowledge could inform work on future pandemics.

The challenge of accounting for individual differences in folk-economic beliefs

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin C. Ruisch ◽  
Rajen A. Anderson ◽  
David A. Pizarro
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Individual Variation ◽  
Political Ideologies ◽  
Economic Beliefs ◽  
Existing Data

AbstractWe argue that existing data on folk-economic beliefs (FEBs) present challenges to Boyer & Petersen's model. Specifically, the widespread individual variation in endorsement of FEBs casts doubt on the claim that humans are evolutionarily predisposed towards particular economic beliefs. Additionally, the authors' model cannot account for the systematic covariance between certain FEBs, such as those observed in distinct political ideologies.

Individual differences, social attention, and the history of the social motivation hypotheses of autism

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter C. Mundy
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Early Development ◽  
Emotional Development ◽  
Social Motivation ◽  
Social Attention ◽  
Social Emotional Development ◽  
Social Emotional ◽  
Precise Understanding ◽  
The Social ◽  
History Of

Abstract The stereotype of people with autism as unresponsive or uninterested in other people was prominent in the 1980s. However, this view of autism has steadily given way to recognition of important individual differences in the social-emotional development of affected people and a more precise understanding of the possible role social motivation has in their early development.

Elaborating the role of reflection and individual differences in the study of folk-economic beliefs

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Evolutionary History ◽  
Behavioral Responses ◽  
History Of ◽  
Economic Beliefs

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.

Inter-individual variation shapes the human microbiome

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily F. Wissel ◽  
Leigh K. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Individual Variation ◽  
Human Microbiome ◽  
Individual Variability ◽  
Microbiota Composition ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Microbiome Research

Abstract The target article suggests inter-individual variability is a weakness of microbiota-gut-brain (MGB) research, but we discuss why it is actually a strength. We comment on how accounting for individual differences can help researchers systematically understand the observed variance in microbiota composition, interpret null findings, and potentially improve the efficacy of therapeutic treatments in future clinical microbiome research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document