Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-10
Do Agency and Communion Explain the Relationship Between Perceiver and Target Effects in Interpersonal Perception? A Meta-Analysis on Generalized Reciprocity
This meta-analysis examines generalized reciprocity, that is, the relationship between how people perceive others and how they are perceived by others. It tests the hypothesis that generalized reciprocity varies as a function of the content domain under investigation. Generalized reciprocity for attributes with primarily communal content (e.g., friendliness) was hypothesized to be more positive than generalized reciprocity for attributes with primarily agentic content (e.g., assertiveness). Sixty-four primary studies reporting correlations between perceiver and target effects with a total number of 17,561 participants were included in the analysis. Results of a multilevel meta-analytical random effects model showed that reciprocity correlations were slightly negative, but around zero, for primarily agentic attributes (r = −.05) and became more positive with increasing communal content (up to r = .18 for primarily communal attributes). Generalized reciprocity thus varied depending on the extent to which the regarded attribute is agentic versus communal.
AbeleA. E.HaukeN.PetersK.LouvetE.SzymkowA.DuanY. (2016). Facets of the fundamental content dimensions: Agency with competence and assertiveness-communion with warmth and morality. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1810. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01810
2.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 751–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751
3.
BackM. D.KennyD. A. (2010). The Social Relations Model: How to understand dyadic processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(10), 855–870. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00303.x
4.
BakanD. (1966). The duality of human existence. An essay on psychology and religion. Rand Mcnally.
5.
BonitoJ. A.KennyD. A. (2010). The measurement of reliability of social relations components from round-robin designs. Personal Relationships, 17(2), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01274.x
6.
CampbellD. T.MillerN.LubetskyJ.O’ConnellE. J. (1964). Varieties of projection in trait attribution. Psychological Monographs, 78(15), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093872
7.
DufnerM.LeisingD.GebauerJ. E. (2016). Which basic rules underlie social judgments? Agency follows a zero-sum principle and communion follows a non-Zero-sum principle. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(5), 677–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216640902
8.
EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J.MochonD.ArielyD. (2007). Selective versus unselective romantic desire: Not all reciprocity is created equal. Psychological Science, 18(4), 317–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01897.x
9.
EntringerT. M.GebauerJ. E.PaulhusD. L. (2021). Extracting agency and communion from the Big Five: A four-way competition. Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211003978
10.
GhaedS. G.GalloL. C. (2006). Distinctions among agency, communion, and unmitigated agency and communion according to the interpersonal circumplex, Five-factor model, and social-emotional correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8601_09
11.
GrafemanS. J.BarryC. T.MarcusD. K.LeachmanL. L. (2015). Interpersonal perceptions of narcissism in an at-risk adolescent sample: A social relations analysis. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(1), 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12088
12.
GurtmanM. B. (1992). Construct validity of interpersonal personality measures: The interpersonal circumplex as a nomological net. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(1), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.1.105
13.
HeynickeM.RauR.LeisingD.WesselsN.WiedenrothA. (2021). Perceiver effects in person perception reflect acquiescence, positivity, and trait-specific content: Evidence from a large-scale replication study. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(4), 839–848. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211039101
14.
HoganR.JonesW. H.CheekJ. M. (1985). Socioanalytic theory: An alternative to armadillo psychology. In SchlenkerB. R. (Ed.), McGraw Hill series in social psychology and personality. The self and social life (pp. 175–198). McGraw Hill.
15.
ImhoffR.KochA. (2017). How orthogonal are the Big Two of social perception? On the curvilinear relation between agency and communion. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616657334
16.
IntHoutJ.IoannidisJ. P. A.BormG. F. (2014). The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(1), Article 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-25
17.
JohnO. P.RobinsR. W. (1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: The Big Five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 61(4), 521–551.
18.
JohnO. P.SrivastavaS. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In PervinL.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102–138). The Guilford Press.
19.
KennyD. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. Distinguished contributions in psychology. The Guilford Press.
20.
KennyD. A. (2004). Person: A general model of interpersonal perception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_3
21.
KennyD. A. (2019). Interpersonal perception, Second Edition: The foundation of social relationships. The Guilford Press.
22.
KennyD. A.WestT. V. (2010). Similarity and agreement in self-and other perception: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 196–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309353414
23.
KnappG.HartungJ. (2003). Improved tests for a random effects meta-regression with a single covariate. Statistics in Medicine, 22(17), 2693–2710. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1482
24.
KurziusE.BorkenauP.LeisingD. (2022). Spontaneous interpersonal complementarity in the lab: A multilevel approach to modeling the antecedents and consequences of people’s interpersonal behaviors and their dynamic interplay. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(2), 244–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000347
25.
LearyT. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. Ronald Press.
26.
LeisingD.ScherbaumS.LockeK. D.ZimmermannJ. (2015). A model of “substance” and “evaluation” in person judgments. Journal of Research in Personality, 57, 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.04.002
27.
LockeK. D.ZhengD.SmithJ. (2014). Establishing commonality versus affirming distinctiveness. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 389–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613506718
28.
MahaffeyK. J.MarcusD. K. (2006). Interpersonal perception of psychopathy: A social relations Analysis. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2006.25.1.53
29.
NestlerS.LüdtkeO.RobitzschA. (2020). Maximum likelihood estimation of a social relations structural equation model. Psychometrika, 85(4), 870–889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-020-09728-z
30.
NestlerS.LüdtkeO.RobitzschA. (2022). Analyzing longitudinal social relations model data using the social relations structural equation model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 47(2), 231–260. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986211056541
31.
PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.ShamseerL.TetzlaffJ. M.AklE. A.BrennanS. E.ChouR.GlanvilleJ.GrimshawJ. M.HróbjartssonA.LaluM. M.LiT.LoderE. W.Mayo-WilsonE.McDonaldS.. . .MoherD. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
32.
RauR.CarlsonE. N.BackM. D.BarrantiM.GebauerJ. E.HumanL. J.LeisingD.NestlerS. (2021). What is the structure of perceiver effects? On the importance of global positivity and trait-specificity across personality domains and judgment contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(3), 745–764. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000278
33.
RauR.NestlerS.GeukesK.BackM. D.DufnerM. (2019). Can other-derogation be beneficial? Seeing others as low in agency can lead to an agentic reputation in newly formed face-to-face groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(1), 201–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000250
34.
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical (Version R version 4.0.2) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computinghttps://www.R-project.org/
35.
SadlerP.WoodyE. (2003). Is who you are who you’re talking to? Interpersonal style and complementarily in mixed-sex interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.80
36.
SchönbrodtF. D.BackM. D.SchmukleS. C. (2012). TripleR: An R package for social relations analyses based on round-robin designs. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 455–470. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0150-4
37.
ShroutP. E.FleissJ. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
38.
SidikK.JonkmanJ. N. (2007). A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies. Statistics in Medicine, 26(9), 1964–1981. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2688
39.
SrivastavaS.GuglielmoS.BeerJ. S. (2010). Perceiving others’ personalities: Examining the dimensionality, assumed similarity to the self, and stability of perceiver effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 520–534. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017057
TiedensL. Z.JimenezM. C. (2003). Assimilation for affiliation and contrast for control: Complementary self-construals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1049–1061. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1049
42.
TiedensL. Z.UnzuetaM. M.YoungM. J. (2007). An unconscious desire for hierarchy? The motivated perception of dominance complementarity in task partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 402–414. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.402
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor Package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
ViechtbauerW.López-LópezJ. A.Sánchez-MecaJ.Marín-MartínezF. (2015). A comparison of procedures to test for moderators in mixed-effects meta-regression models. Psychological Methods, 20(3), 360–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000023
47.
WigginsJ. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.3.395
48.
WigginsJ. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In CicchettiD.GroveW. M. (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul E. Meehl: Vol. 1. Matters of public interest; Vol. 2. Personality and psychopathology (pp. 89–113). University of Minnesota Press.
49.
WojciszkeB.AbeleA. E. (2008). The primacy of communion over agency and its reversals in evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(7), 1139–1147. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.549
50.
YbarraO.ChanE.ParkD. (2001). Young and old adults’ concerns about morality and competence. Motivation and Emotion, 25(2), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010633908298
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
