Unpredictable volatility and trust: The VISA model of person perception.

By accounting for perceptions of volatility and predictability of key character dimensions (e.g., the predictable volatility of sociability), I advance our understanding of person perception and interpersonal relationships. I incorporate volatility into person perception theory by introducing the volatility, integrity, sociability, and ability (VISA) model. I illustrate the importance of unpredictable volatility and the VISA model by analyzing the use of humor, and I propose three moderators of the effects of humor on trust: content, context, and intent. In doing so, I develop a foundation for future person perception research and bridge the impression formation (warmth and competence), trust (ability, benevolence, and integrity), and status (competence, generosity, and commitment) literature.

How perceived lack of benevolence harms trust of artificial intelligence management.

As organizations continue to supplement and replace human management with artificial intelligence (AI), it is essential that we understand the factors that influence employees' trust in AI management. Across one preregistered field study, where we survey 400 delivery riders in Mainland China, and three preregistered experiments (total N = 2,350), we find that AI management is perceived as less benevolent than human management. Given that benevolence is an important antecedent of trust in leaders, this perception has a negative effect on trust in AI management, even when controlling for perceived ability and integrity. Employees prefer human management to AI management in high empathy demand contexts, where individuals seek management that can empathize and experience the emotions that they are feeling, as opposed to low empathy demand contexts. These findings deepen our understanding of trust and provide important theoretical and practical insights on the implementation and adoption of AI management. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Humor and power.

Although humor significantly shapes interpersonal perception and behavior, it historically has been surprisingly absent from much of the psychology literature. However, there have been recent advances in humor research which have provided us with two key insights. First, humor is intricately linked with power. Individuals who use humor well can elevate, maintain, and solidify their position in the social hierarchy. Second, attempting to use humor is risky. Individuals whose humor attempts are perceived as offensive and inappropriate can lose status and their ability to influence others effectively. This review provides theoretical and practical insights on how humor shapes the social hierarchy, while outlining important areas for future research.

The economic and interpersonal consequences of deflecting direct questions.

Direct, difficult questions (e.g., Do you have other offers? When do you plan on having children?) pose a challenge. Respondents may incur economic costs for honestly revealing information, reputational costs for engaging in deception, and interpersonal costs, including harm to perceptions of trust and liking, for directly declining to answer the question (e.g., I would rather not answer that question.). Across 8 experiments, we explore the relative economic and interpersonal consequences of a fourth approach: deflection, answering a direct question with another question. We describe how individuals infer the respondent's communication motive from their response (e.g., a motive to seek or hide information), and how these inferences influence perceptions of the respondent's trust and likability. We contrast deflection with other types of responses and show that deflection causes significantly less reputational harm than detected deception and causes significantly less interpersonal harm than directly declining to answer a question. In some cases, deflection even yields better interpersonal and economic outcomes than honest disclosures (e.g., deflecting questions about prior acts of untrustworthy behavior). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Who is trustworthy? Predicting trustworthy intentions and behavior.

Existing trust research has disproportionately focused on what makes people more or less trusting, and has largely ignored the question of what makes people more or less trustworthy. In this investigation, we deepen our understanding of trustworthiness. Across six studies using economic games that measure trustworthy behavior and survey items that measure trustworthy intentions, we explore the personality traits that predict trustworthiness. We demonstrate that guilt-proneness predicts trustworthiness better than a variety of other personality measures, and we identify sense of interpersonal responsibility as the underlying mechanism by both measuring it and manipulating it directly. People who are high in guilt-proneness are more likely to be trustworthy than are individuals who are low in guilt-proneness, but they are not universally more generous. We demonstrate that people high in guilt-proneness are more likely to behave in interpersonally sensitive ways when they are more responsible for others' outcomes. We also explore potential interventions to increase trustworthiness. Our findings fill a significant gap in the trust literature by building a foundation for investigating trustworthiness, by identifying a trait predictor of trustworthy intentions and behavior, and by providing practical advice for deciding in whom we should place our trust. (PsycINFO Database Record

Risky business: When humor increases and decreases status.

Across 8 experiments, we demonstrate that humor can influence status, but attempting to use humor is risky. The successful use of humor can increase status in both new and existing relationships, but unsuccessful humor attempts (e.g., inappropriate jokes) can harm status. The relationship between the successful use of humor and status is mediated by perceptions of confidence and competence. The successful use of humor signals confidence and competence, which in turn increases the joke teller's status. Interestingly, telling both appropriate and inappropriate jokes, regardless of the outcome, signals confidence. Although signaling confidence typically increases status and power, telling inappropriate jokes signals low competence and the combined effect of high confidence and low competence harms status. Rather than conceptualizing humor as a frivolous or ancillary behavior, we argue that humor plays a fundamental role in shaping interpersonal perceptions and hierarchies within groups. (PsycINFO Database Record