Adversarial alignment enables competing models to engage in cooperative theory building toward cumulative science.

Crises in science concern not only methods, statistics, and results but also, theory development. Beyond the indispensable refinement of tools and procedures, resolving crises would also benefit from a deeper understanding of the concepts and processes guiding research. Usually, theories compete, and some lose, incentivizing destruction of seemingly opposing views. This does not necessarily contribute to accumulating insights, and it may incur collateral damage (e.g., impairing cognitive processes and collegial relations). To develop a more constructive model, we built on adversarial collaboration, which integrates incompatible results into agreed-on new empirical research to test competing hypotheses [D. Kahneman, Am. Psychol. 58, 723-730 (2003)]. Applying theory and evidence from the behavioral sciences, we address the group dynamic complexities of adversarial interactions between scientists. We illustrate the added value of considering these in an "adversarial alignment" that addressed competing conceptual frameworks from five different theories of social evaluation. Negotiating a joint framework required two preconditions and several guidelines. First, we reframed our interactions from competitive rivalry to cooperative pursuit of a joint goal, and second, we assumed scientific competence and good intentions, enabling cooperation toward that goal. Then, we applied five rules for successful multiparty negotiations: 1) leveling the playing field, 2) capitalizing on curiosity, 3) producing measurable progress, 4) working toward mutual gain, and 5) being aware of the downside alternative. Together, these guidelines can encourage others to create conditions that allow for theoretical alignments and develop cumulative science.

Individual self > relational self > collective self-But why? Processes driving the self-hierarchy in self- and person perception.

OBJECTIVE: The self has three parts: individual, relational, and collective. Typically, people personally value their individual self most, their relational self less, and their collective self least. This self-hierarchy is consequential, but underlying processes have remained unknown. Here, we propose two process accounts. The content account draws upon selves' agentic-communal content, explaining why the individual self is preferred most. The teleology account draws upon selves' instrumentality for becoming one's personal ideal, explaining why the collective self is preferred least. METHOD: In Study 1 (N = 200, 45% female, Mage = 32.9 years, 79% Caucasian), participants listed characteristics of their three selves (individual, relational, collective) and evaluated those characteristics in seven preference tasks. Additionally, we analyzed the characteristics' agentic-communal content, and participants rated their characteristics' teleological instrumentality. Study 2 (N = 396, 55% female, Mage = 34.5 years, 76% Caucasian) used identical methodology and featured an additional condition, where participants evaluated the selves of a friend. RESULTS: Study 1 reconfirmed the self-hierarchy and supported both process accounts. Study 2 replicated and extended findings. As hypothesized, when people evaluate others' selves, a different self-hierarchy emerges (relational > individual > collective). CONCLUSIONS: This research pioneers process-driven explanations for the self-hierarchy, establishing why people prefer different self-parts in themselves than in others.

Navigating the social world: Toward an integrated framework for evaluating self, individuals, and groups.

Social evaluation occurs at personal, interpersonal, group, and intergroup levels, with competing theories and evidence. Five models engage in adversarial collaboration, to identify common conceptual ground, ongoing controversies, and continuing agendas: Dual Perspective Model (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007); Behavioral Regulation Model (Leach, Ellemers, & Barreto, 2007); Dimensional Compensation Model (Yzerbyt et al., 2005); Stereotype Content Model (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002); and Agency-Beliefs-Communion Model (Koch, Imhoff, Dotsch, Unkelbach, & Alves, 2016). Each has distinctive focus, theoretical roots, premises, and evidence. Controversies dispute dimensions: number, organization, definition, and labeling; their relative priority; and their relationship. Our first integration suggests 2 fundamental dimensions: Vertical (agency, competence, "getting ahead") and Horizontal (communion, warmth, "getting along"), with respective facets of ability and assertiveness (Vertical) and friendliness and morality (Horizontal). Depending on context, a third dimension is conservative versus progressive Beliefs. Second, different criteria for priority favor different dimensions: processing speed and subjective weight (Horizontal); pragmatic diagnosticity (Vertical); moderators include number and type of target, target-perceiver relationship, context. Finally, the relation between dimensions has similar operational moderators. As an integrative framework, the dimensions' dynamics also depend on perceiver goals (comprehension, efficiency, harmony, compatibility), each balancing top-down and bottom-up processes, for epistemic or hedonic functions. One emerging insight is that the nature and number of targets each of these models typically examines alters perceivers' evaluative goal and how bottom-up information or top-down inferences interact. This framework benefits theoretical parsimony and new research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others.

On the basis of previous research, the authors hypothesize that (a) person descriptive terms can be organized into the broad dimensions of agency and communion of which communion is the primary one; (b) the main distinction between these dimensions pertains to their profitability for the self (agency) vs. for other persons (communion); hence, agency is more desirable and important in the self-perspective, and communion is more desirable and important in the other-perspective; (c) self-other outcome dependency increases importance of another person's agency. Study 1 showed that a large number of trait names can be reduced to these broad dimensions, that communion comprises more item variance, and that agency is predicted by self-profitability and communion by other-profitability. Studies 2 and 3 showed that agency is more relevant and desired for self, and communion is more relevant and desired for others. Study 4 showed that agency is more important in a close friend than an unrelated peer, and this difference is completely mediated by the perceived outcome dependency.

Detecting emotional faces and features in a visual search paradigm: are faces special?

In 2 experiments, participants were presented schematic faces with emotional expressions (threatening, friendly) in a neutral-faces context or neutral expressions in an emotional-faces context. These conditions were compared with detection performance in displays containing key features of emotional faces not forming the perceptual gestalt of a face. Supporting the notion of a threat detection advantage, Experiment 1 found that threatening faces were faster detected than friendly faces, whereas no difference emerged between the corresponding feature conditions. Experiment 2 increased task difficulty with a backward masking procedure and found corresponding results. In neither of the studies was the threat detection advantage associated with reduced accuracy. However, features were, in general, detected faster than faces when task difficulty was high.

Integrating situational and dispositional determinants of job satisfaction: findings from three samples of professionals.

Job satisfaction can be conceptualized as a function of situational conditions, personal characteristics, and interactions between both groups of variables. The authors compared the relative predictive power of these determinants in 3 samples of professionals (total N = 1,065). Perceived job characteristics (qualification possibilities, social support, stress, autonomy, participatory leadership) uniquely explained 7-22% of the variance in job satisfaction, and dispositional factors (Big Five, occupational self-efficacy, work centrality, mastery goals) uniquely explained 8-12% of the variance. Dispositional influences were partially mediated by perceived job characteristics. Interactions between situational and dispositional factors were of little significance. The authors concluded that perceived job characteristics (especially autonomy and participatory leadership) are important determinants of job satisfaction, and neuroticism is an important determinant as well. Highly educated professionals' job satisfaction also seems to be driven by qualification possibilities.

High construal level can help negotiators to reach integrative agreements: The role of information exchange and judgement accuracy.

In negotiations, a focus on interests (why negotiators want something) is key to integrative agreements. Yet, many negotiators spontaneously focus on positions (what they want), with suboptimal outcomes. Our research applies construal-level theory to negotiations and proposes that a high construal level instigates a focus on interests during negotiations which, in turn, positively affects outcomes. In particular, we tested the notion that the effect of construal level on outcomes was mediated by information exchange and judgement accuracy. Finally, we expected the mere mode of presentation of task material to affect construal levels and manipulated construal levels using concrete versus abstract negotiation tasks. In two experiments, participants negotiated in dyads in either a high- or low-construal-level condition. In Study 1, high-construal-level dyads outperformed dyads in the low-construal-level condition; this main effect was mediated by information exchange. Study 2 replicated both the main and mediation effects using judgement accuracy as mediator and additionally yielded a positive effect of a high construal level on a second, more complex negotiation task. These results not only provide empirical evidence for the theoretically proposed link between construal levels and negotiation outcomes but also shed light on the processes underlying this effect.

Facets of the Fundamental Content Dimensions: Agency with Competence and Assertiveness-Communion with Warmth and Morality.

Agency (A) and communion (C) are fundamental content dimensions. We propose a facet-model that differentiates A into assertiveness (AA) and competence (AC) and C into warmth (CW) and morality (CM). We tested the model in a cross-cultural study by comparing data from Asia, Australia, Europe, and the USA (overall N = 1.808). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported our model. Both the two-factor model and the four-factor model showed good fit indices across countries. Participants answered additional measures intended to demonstrate the fruitfulness of distinguishing the facets. The findings support the model's construct validity by positioning the fundamental dimensions and their facets within a network of self-construal, values, impression management, and the Big Five personality factors: In all countries, A was related to independent self-construal and to agentic values, C was related to interdependent self-construal and to communal values. Regarding the facets, AA was always related to A values, but the association of AC with A values fell below our effect size criterion in four of the five countries. A (both AA and AC) was related to agentic impression management. However, C (both CW and CM) was neither related to communal nor to agentic impression management. Regarding the Big Five personality factors, A was related to emotional stability, to extraversion, and to conscientiousness. C was related to agreeableness and to extraversion. AA was more strongly related to emotional stability and extraversion than AC. CW was more strongly related to extraversion and agreeableness than CM. We could also show that self-esteem was more related to AA than AC; and that it was related to CM, but not to CW. Our research shows that (a) the fundamental dimensions of A and C are stable across cultures; and (b) that the here proposed distinction of facets of A and C is fruitful in analyzing self-perception. The here proposed measure, the AC-IN, may be a useful tool in this research area. Applications of the facet model in social perception research are discussed.

Negative mood, self-focused attention, and the experience of physical symptoms: the joint impact hypothesis.

A joint impact hypothesis on symptom experience is introduced that specifies the role of negative mood and self-focus, which have been considered independently in previous research. Accordingly, negative affect only promotes symptom experience when people simultaneously focus their attention on the self. One correlational study and 4 experiments supported this prediction: Only negative mood combined with self-focus facilitated the experience (see the self-reports in Studies 1, 2a, & 2b) and the accessibility (lexical decisions, Stroop task in Studies 3 & 4) of physical symptoms, whereas neither positive mood nor negative mood without self-focus did. Furthermore, the joint impact of negative mood and self-focused attention on momentary symptom experience remained significant after controlling for the influence of dispositional symptom reporting and neuroticism.

The dynamics of masculine-agentic and feminine-communal traits: findings from a prospective study.

A reciprocal impact hypothesis posits an influence of gender-related traits (agency and communion) on role enactment and a reciprocal impact of role enactment on gender-related traits, for both men and women. Specifically, in this study it was predicted that agency influences career success and career success influences agency. In addition, the reciprocal influence of communion and family roles was examined. A prospective study with almost 2000 university graduates, who were tested after graduation and 1.5 years later, clearly supported the reciprocal impact hypothesis for agency and career success. Communion influenced family roles, but there was no reciprocal influence. Implications for theories of career success and of sex and gender are discussed.

Pursuit of communal values in an agentic manner: a way to happiness?

The present research studies the association between traits, values, and life satisfaction. While values should influence the direction of an individual's goals and behavior, his/her traits impact effort-expenditure, efficiency, and persistence in goal-pursuit. We apply the framework of the "Big Two" of agency and communion (Bakan, 1966) for distinguishing the content of values and traits. While agentic content refers to qualities relevant for goal-attainment, such as assertiveness, competence or persistence, communal content refers to qualities relevant for the establishment and maintenance of social relationships, such as being friendly, helpful, or fair. We predict that high scores on communal values and high scores on agentic traits are associated with life satisfaction. We test these predictions in two studies conducted in different countries (Germany and Russia) with different cultural background. The findings support our reasoning: across both countries we find positive associations of communal values and agentic traits with life satisfaction; and individuals high in communal values and high in agentic traits are most satisfied with their lives. In Russia, the association of communal values with life satisfaction is moderated by agentic traits; in Germany, however, there is a main effect of communal values.

Comparison focus in intergroup comparisons: who we compare to whom influences who we see as powerful and agentic.

In intergroup comparisons one group usually becomes the implicit norm that other groups are compared to. Three studies address the consequences that the direction of the comparison has for perceptions of the compared groups. For real groups (Experiment 1) and fictitious groups (Experiments 2 and 3) participants perceived a group as more powerful and higher in status when it had been the norm rather than the effect to be explained in a text comparing two groups. Moreover, norm groups and their "typical" members were perceived as more agentic and less communal than comparison groups, and these attributions were mediated by the ascription of power. The authors conclude that systematic ways of explaining one group rather than another could serve as a subtle tool to perpetuate the status quo of intergroup power relations.