Looking through the eyes of the powerful

Across four experiments, we test the idea that power decreases metastereotyping, and that this effect is mediated by reduced perspective taking. Metastereotypes refer to the beliefs that members of group A share about the stereotypes that members of specific outgroup B typically have about ingroup A. We propose that the dominant psychological orientation of the powerless is aimed at seeing how others see them. In an intergroup situation they are therefore inclined to activate and apply metastereotypes. In the first three experiments we consistently find that low power leads to more metastereotyping than high power and control (in Experiment 3). Specifically, we show this effect with three different manipulations of power, namely a role manipulation (Experiment 1), experiential priming (Experiment 2), and parafoveal priming (Experiment 3). In the fourth experiment we uncover the mediating role of perspective taking. Together these findings provide strong evidence that powerlessness leads to metastereotyping

Disrupting the flow:How brief silences in group conversations affect social needs

AbstractWe all know the awkward feeling when a conversation is disrupted by a brief silence. This paper studies why such moments can be unsettling. We suggest that silences are particularly disturbing if they disrupt the conversational flow. In two experiments we examined the effects of a single brief instance of silence on social needs, perceived consensus, emotions, and rejection. Study 1 demonstrated that fluent conversations are associated with feelings of belonging, self-esteem, and social validation. If a brief silence disrupts this fluency, negative emotions and feelings of rejection arise. Study 2 replicated these effects in a more realistic setting, and showed that the effects of a brief silence are considerable despite participants' unawareness of the silence. Together, results show that conversational flow induces a sense of belonging and positive self-esteem. Moreover, this research suggests an implicit route to social validation, in which consensus is inferred from fluent group conversation

Disentangling Societal Discontent and Intergroup Threat:Explaining Actions Towards Refugees and Towards the State

In debates about migration in Western countries, citizens’ concerns about immigrant groups often go hand in hand with concerns about the decline of society as a whole. Societal discontent, however, is a distinct concept and may have its own relations with immigration attitudes, over and above the role of perceived immigrant threat. In a survey of a representative sample of Dutch people (N = 1239), we disentangled societal discontent from intergroup threat with respect to their relationship with different kinds of action intentions regarding refugees (both pro and anti) and intentions regarding the government. Unsurprisingly, societal discontent predicted support for anti-government protest (which was strikingly high). More importantly, societal discontent independently predicted both pro-refugee and anti-refugee action intentions, over and above intergroup threat. These associations were moderated by intergroup threat: only when refugees were experienced as a threat did discontent predict anti-refugee action intentions. On the other hand, societal discontent predicted more pro-refugee action intentions, but only when people experienced refugees as an enrichment. Thus, despite populist rhetoric, societal discontent is not always tied to anti-immigrant actions. This suggests that refugee sentiments and societal discontent are not exchangeable: societal discontent plays an important role in reactions to immigration

The Rocky Road from Experience to Expression of Emotions - Women’s Anger about Sexism

We investigated women’s anger expression in response to sexism. In three studies (Ns = 103, 317, and 241), we tested the predictions that women express less anger about sexism than they experience—the anger gap—and that the anger expressed by women is associated with instrumental concerns, specifically perceived costs and benefits of confronting sexism. To estimate the specificity of the proposed gap, we compared women’s anger reactions to men’s anger reactions as well as anger reactions to sadness reactions. Across studies, we found support for the anger gap, that is, lower anger expression than experience, and the gap was more pronounced for women than for men (Study 3). Surprisingly, a gap also occurred in sadness reactions. Regarding instrumental concerns, there was converging evidence that expressed anger was negatively associated with individual costs. We also investigated whether anger expression can be encouraged through women’s identification with feminists (Studies 1 and 2) and support by other women (Study 2); yet, we found no evidence. We conclude that, to understand women’s—and men’s—reactions to sexism, it is critical not to mistake their emotion expression for how they really feel, but instead to also consider strategic concerns. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42761-021-00081-7

Beyond Content of Conversation:The Role of Conversational Form in the Emergence and Regulation of Social Structure

Social interaction is pivotal to the formation of social relationships and groups. Much is known about the importance of interaction content (e.g., the transfer of information). The present review concentrates on the influence of the act of conversing on the emergence of a sense of solidarity, more or less independently of the content. Micro-characteristics of the conversation (e.g., brief silences, smooth turn-taking) can profoundly influence the emergence and the regulation of relationships and of solidarity. We suggest that this might be because the form of a conversation is experienced as an expression of the social structures within the group. Because of its dynamic nature, moreover, the form of conversation provides group members with a continuous gauge of the group’s structural features (e.g., its hierarchy, social norms, and shared reality). Therefore, minor changes in the form and flow of group conversation can have considerable consequences for the regulation of social structure

Communicating the right emotion makes violence seem less wrong:Power-congruent emotions lead outsiders to legitimize violence of powerless and powerful groups in intractable conflict

In intractable intergroup conflicts, groups often try to frame intergroup violence as legitimate through the use of emotional appeals. Two experiments demonstrate that outsiders' perception of which emotion conflict parties communicate influences the extent to which they legitimize their violence. Results show that although outsiders typically give more leeway to powerless groups because of their "underdog" status, communicating power-congruent emotions qualifies this effect; observers legitimize intergroup violence most when powerless groups communicate fear and when powerful groups communicate anger. This is because fear communicates that the group is a victim that cannot be blamed for their violence, whereas anger communicates that the group is wronged and thus their violence seems righteous and moral. Results further show that sympathy for the powerless appears to be a more fragile basis for legitimization of violence than the moral high ground for the powerful. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.</p

Running head: CONVERSATIONAL FORM AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE Beyond Content of Conversation: The Role of Conversational Form in the Emergence and Regulation of Social Structure

Abstract Social interaction is pivotal to the formation of social relationships and groups. Much is known about the importance of interaction content (e.g., the transfer of information). The present review concentrates on the influence of the act of conversing on the emergence of a sense of solidarity, more or less independently of the content. Micro-characteristics of the conversation (e.g., brief silences, smooth turn-taking) can profoundly influence the emergence and the regulation of relationships and of solidarity. We suggest that this might be because the form of a conversation is experienced as an expression of the social structures within the group. Because of its dynamic nature, moreover, the form of conversation provides group members with a continuous gauge of the group&apos;s structural features (e.g., its hierarchy, social norms, and shared reality). Therefore, minor changes in the form and flow of group conversation can have considerable consequences for the regulation of social structure. A good conversation comprises more than the exchange of information. Imagine having a video call with a job applicant from overseas. The applicant has an excellent resume and during the interview, she answers all questions satisfactorily and seems friendly and respectful. But despite the high quality answers and her objective suitability for the job, you are unsure whether to hire her. During the interview, you do not have the feeling that you clicked: She seems a bit distant or aloof and does not seem very enthusiastic as it takes her some time to respond -or laugh about your jokes. There are some awkward silences. Altogether, the conversation leaves you with a vague sense that the applicant may not fit into the team very well. This could be because she is indeed difficult to work with, but it could also be simply because a lack of flow in the conversation has unconsciously created a barrier between you and the applicant. Rather than solely focusing on the content of the conversation, your judgment of whether the applicant fits your team may be influenced by the form of conversation: There may have been slight delays &quot;on the line&quot; obstructing the development of a close social connection. This role of conversational form in shaping solidarity is central to the current paper. Social interactions like these are central to the formation of social relations The present paper also argues that solidarity emerges not just because of the content of social interaction (what is being said both verbally and nonverbally) but also because of a strong influence by the form of interaction. Going back to our example of the job interview, the content of the conversation should have caused you to hire the applicant, as her answers were of high quality and she behaved normally. But the form of the conversation produced the opposite outcome: The disruptions in conversational flow elicited the feeling that the relationship between you and the applicant was somehow flawed, making her less likely to fit the team. Indeed, the literature we review below suggests that the form of communication in itself shapes social outcomes to a considerable extent. For instance, speaking at a similar pace or in a similar accent not only facilitates smooth interaction, but also communicates that actors belong to the same group Overview of the Paper In this literature review, our central research question is whether and how the form of conversations influences (a) the emergence and (b) the maintenance of solidarity. Our goal is to develop a coherent framework explaining how micro-characteristics of the form of dialogue (e.g. silences, interruptions, the experience of flow) influence processes at a more macro-level, such as the emergence and regulation of social structures. We will focus mainly on the social psychological literature, but we integrate this with findings and theoretical perspectives from the sociological, anthropological, and communication literature, which also devoted attention to the form of communication in relation to solidarity. We start with some definitions and demarcations: what is conversational form, what is flow, and what is solidarity? Then we discuss existing theories on the emergence of solidarity. Next, we introduce a new theoretical framework posing that conversational form both represents and regulates social structure. We then review empirical evidence for the two main propositions of this framework. First, we present studies that show the influence of conversational form in processes of emerging social structure. Second, we focus on the regulation of social structure and introduce three different structural factors that may be Conversational Form and Social Structure 6 regulated through conversational form: Social norms, hierarchy, and shared reality. Finally, we discuss the relevance and practical implications of our theoretical framework. The Form of Conversation This literature review is about the influence exerted by the form of conversations. We define conversational form quite broadly as the behaviors within a conversation that are not categorized as content. Different aspects of conversational form are described in literatures on nonverbal expressions (e.g., We are particularly interested in the influence of conversational form on the development of solidarity in small groups and dyads. In small groups and dyads communication between people is characterized not only by what is said, but also by the flow of conversations. Conversational flow is defined as the extent to which a conversation is experienced as smooth, efficient, and mutually engaging (see The experience of conversational flow is the result of the cooperative interplay of multiple actors taking finely tuned turns and is therefore by definition the outcome of a collaboration among multiple actors. We believe that conversational flow can be used, subjectively, as an indicator of the quality of the relationship. The reason for this is that turnConversational Form and Social Structure 7 taking in conversation is more than just an informational exchange-the conversation is, for humans, one of the most important instruments by which we can &quot;do&quot; sociality (e.g., Often it is difficult to disentangle effects of form and content of interaction, as they are closely intertwined and mutually dependent. But sometimes, the meaning of aspects of conversational form can be interpreted more or less independently from the content of what is being said. This is possible, for example, if one can find a way of systematically manipulating some aspect of the form of conversation while keeping constant its content. It is this literature we review here. The Emergence of Solidarity Before examining how solidarity is developed in small groups and dyads, it is important to first define it. The Oxford English Dictionary refers to solidarity as &quot;The fact or quality, on the part of communities etc., of being perfectly united or at one in some respect, especially in interests, sympathies, or aspirations.&quot; In early theorizing, Emile Durkheim (1893/1984) uses the term social solidarity to describe the nature of the bonds that tie individuals to society. Later descriptions by Leach et al., (2008, p. 147) suggested that solidarity should be associated with &quot;a sense of belonging, psychological attachment to a group, and coordination with other group members&quot;. The different notions of solidarity thus reveal several aspects of solidarity: The sense that there is an experience of unity within the group and the sense that one belongs to or identifies with the group. Accordingly, we define solidarity here as the perceived and experienced we-ness within the group as a whole, in conjunction with a sense of individual belonging to the group. At the collective level of the Conversational Form and Social Structure 8 group, solidarity is related to perceptions of entitativity Bottom-Up Processes: Solidarity Emerging From Interdependence and Communication How does solidarity emerge within small groups? Different theories have been developed to answer this question, which can be broadly categorized into two classes (see But beyond interdependence, group members also need a shared understanding and shared language. Through communication, group members develop a socially shared understanding of the world around them, a process called grounding Top-Down Processes: Solidarity Emerging from Self-Categorization Second, there are theories that focus on top-down processes. An example of this is self-categorization theory (SCT: Turner, 1982; According to SCT, individuals tend to perceive themselves in terms of a shared stereotype that defines the ingroup in contrast to relevant outgroups (e.g., . Group members can thus develop a sense of solidarity on the basis of their shared attributes (cf. Beyond Explicit Processes Conversational Form and Social Structure 10 Both theories about inductive and deductive pathways to group formation have hitherto been applied mainly to studying and understanding explicit processes of social influence (e.g., through the content of interaction or through category activation) that underpin a group&apos;s formation. Thus, influence may be exerted when people engage in explicit comparison of their own opinion with those of others (e.g., Conversational Form both Reflects and Constitutes Social Structure How do social interactions shape and structure culture and other social structures? The study of these processes has been a central topic in early sociological research (e.g., The core idea of these approaches is that structures (including meaning, identity, and institutional order) shape social interaction, but that structures at the same time are shaped by interaction Can this Idea be Applied to Conversational Form? In line with the sociological literature, we propose that the form of communication is taken as a representation of the social structure. When people engage in a conversation, the coordinated speech acts together constitute the relations among those in the social interaction (cf. Fiske, 2004), in the dual sense that speech acts are both shaped by and shape these relationships. On the one hand, this means that the dynamics of the conversation provide meta-information about the state of solidarity within a group or dyad. For instance, a smoothly flowing conversation is likely to represent a relation in which levels of solidarity are high, and people are likely to be on the same wavelength. In contrast, a conversation that is &quot;hard work&quot; because utterances are poorly coordinated (e.g., with disruptions or overlapping speech) may indicate low levels of solidarity between people. On the other hand, the form of conversation should not be viewed as a mere reflection of the social system: The quality of the interaction plays a role in forming, transforming, and maintaining the solidarity within the group. For example, interrupting a person of high status may not only reflect a potential threat to the hierarchy, the act itself also brings such a threat into existence and thereby, to some extent, changes the solidarity within the group. Conversational Form and Social Structure 12 Important to point out is that the classic literature (e.g., Conceptually, we believe that the form of interactions, much like other forms of co-action such as dancing or singing together, or even cooking a meal, are subjectively experienced as collaborative actions taken by &quot;us&quot; (see also The pragmatic reason for focusing on the form of interactions is that it can be studied and manipulated quite easily, especially with the help of modern communication technology. This makes it a relatively powerful instrument for research, as our review of this body of research will show. Studies on the Form of Communicatio

When to reveal what you feel:How emotions towards antagonistic out-group and third party audiences are expressed strategically

In intergroup conflicts, expressed emotions influence how others see and react to those who express them. Here, we investigated whether this in turn implies that emotions may be expressed strategically. We tested whether emotion expression can differ from emotion experience, and whether emotion expression (more than emotion experience) is used to pursue specific goals. Specifically, we focused on whether support-seeking emotions (fear and sadness) are used to call for support from a powerful third party and contempt to distance from an antagonistic out-group. In two studies, using the same ostensible conflict, we manipulated whether participants communicated their emotions towards the out-group (no vs. yes) and third party (no vs. yes) and employed a between-subjects design in Study 1 (N = 86) and a within-subjects design in Study 2 (N = 83). In both studies, we found that members of a disadvantaged group expressed reduced support-seeking emotions towards the out-group than they experienced (i.e., in conditions without an audience), providing support for the assumption that emotion expression does not necessarily reflect experience. Further, in Study 2, we found in line with expectations that the goal to call for support was more important in the communication with the third party than with the antagonistic out-group. The goal was best predicted by expressed support-seeking emotions, providing support for the assumption that emotion expression is used to pursue goals. Interestingly, we only found this association for a beneficial goal (i.e., calling for support) and not for distancing, a destructive goal. These results support the proposed strategic use of emotion expression and as such advance our understanding of the function of expressed emotions