Katharine H. Greenaway

The Path to Glory Is Paved With Hierarchy: When Hierarchical Differentiation Increases Group Effectiveness

Two experiments examined the psychological and biological antecedents of hierarchical differentiation and the resulting consequences for productivity and conflict within small groups. In Experiment 1, which used a priming manipulation, hierarchically differentiated groups (i.e., groups comprising 1 high-power-primed, 1 low-power-primed, and 1 baseline individual) performed better on a procedurally interdependent task than did groups comprising exclusively either all high-power-primed or all low-power-primed individuals. There were no effects of hierarchical differentiation on performance on a procedurally independent task. Experiment 2 used a biological marker of dominance motivation (prenatal testosterone exposure as measured by a digit-length ratio) to manipulate hierarchical differentiation. The pattern of results from Experiment 1 was replicated; mixed-testosterone groups achieved greater productivity than did groups comprising all high-testosterone or all low-testosterone individuals. Furthermore, intragroup conflict mediated the productivity decrements for the high-testosterone but not the low-testosterone groups. This research suggests possible directions for future research and the need to further delineate the conditions and types of hierarchy under which hierarchical differentiation enhances rather than undermines group effectiveness.

Social Identity Reduces Depression by Fostering Positive Attributions

Social identities are generally associated with better health and in particular lower levels of depression. However, there has been limited investigation of why social identities protect against depression. The current research suggests that social identities reduce depression in part because they attenuate the depressive attribution style (internal, stable, and global; e.g., “I failed because I’m stupid”). These relationships are first investigated in a survey (Study 1, N = 139) and then followed up in an experiment that manipulates social identity salience (Study 2, N = 88). In both cases, people with stronger social identities were less likely to attribute negative events to internal, stable, or global causes and subsequently reported lower levels of depression. These studies thus indicate that social identities can protect and enhance mental health by facilitating positive interpretations of stress and failure. Implications for clinical theory and practice are discussed.

Shared Identity Is Key to Effective Communication

The ability to communicate with others is one of the most important human social functions, yet communication is not always investigated from a social perspective. This research examined the role that shared social identity plays in communication effectiveness using a minimal group paradigm. In two experiments, participants constructed a model using instructions that were said to be created by an ingroup or an outgroup member. Participants made models of objectively better quality when working from communications ostensibly created by an ingroup member (Experiments 1 and 2). However, this effect was attenuated when participants were made aware of a shared superordinate identity that included both the ingroup and the outgroup (Experiment 2). These findings point to the importance of shared social identity for effective communication and provide novel insights into the social psychology of communication.

Don't grin when you win: the social costs of positive emotion expression in performance situations.

People who express positive emotion usually have better social outcomes than people who do not, and suppressing the expression of emotions can have interpersonal costs. Nevertheless, social convention suggests that there are situations in which people should suppress the expression of positive emotions, such as when trying to appear humble in victory. The present research tested whether there are interpersonal costs to expressing positive emotions when winning. In Experiment 1, inexpressive winners were evaluated more positively and rated as lower in hubristic-but not authentic-pride compared with expressive winners. Experiment 2 confirmed that inexpressive winners were perceived as using expressive suppression to downregulate their positive emotion expression. Experiment 3 replicated the findings of Experiment 1, and also found that people were more interested in forming a friendship with inexpressive winners than expressive winners. The effects were mediated by the perception that the inexpressive winner tried to protect the losers feelings. This research is the first to identify social costs of expressing positive emotion, and highlights the importance of understanding the situational context when determining optimal emotion regulation strategies.

Reappraisal but Not Suppression Downregulates the Experience of Positive and Negative Emotion

The emotion regulation literature is growing exponentially, but there is limited understanding of the comparative strengths of emotion regulation strategies in downregulating positive emotional experiences. The present research made the first systematic investigation examining the consequences of using expressive suppression and cognitive reappraisal strategies to downregulate positive and negative emotion within a single design. Two experiments with over 1,300 participants demonstrated that reappraisal successfully reduced the experience of negative and positive affect compared with suppression and control conditions. Suppression did not reduce the experience of either positive or negative emotion relative to the control condition. This finding provides evidence against the assumption that expressive suppression reduces the experience of positive emotion. This work speaks to an emerging literature on the benefits of downregulating positive emotion, showing that suppression is an appropriate strategy when one wishes to reduce positive emotion displays while maintaining the benefits of positive emotional experience.

Loss of Control Increases Belief in Precognition and Belief in Precognition Increases Control

Every year thousands of dollars are spent on psychics who claim to “know” the future. The present research questions why, despite no evidence that humans are able to psychically predict the future, do people persist in holding irrational beliefs about precognition? We argue that believing the future is predictable increases one’s own perceived ability to exert control over future events. As a result, belief in precognition should be particularly strong when people most desire control–that is, when they lack it. In Experiment 1 (N = 87), people who were experimentally induced to feel low in control reported greater belief in precognition than people who felt high in control. Experiment 2 (N = 53) investigated whether belief in precognition increases perceived control. Consistent with this notion, providing scientific evidence that precognition is possible increased feelings of control relative to providing scientific evidence that precognition was not possible. Experiment 3 (N = 132) revealed that when control is low, believing in precognition helps people to feel in control once more. Prediction therefore acts as a compensatory mechanism in times of low control. The present research provides new insights into the psychological functions of seemingly irrational beliefs, like belief in psychic abilities.

Awareness of Common Humanity Reduces Empathy and Heightens Expectations of Forgiveness for Temporally Distant Wrongdoing

The present research identified why and under what conditions perpetrator groups expect forgiveness from victims when focused on common humanity. In Experiment 1 (N = 41), thinking about victims as fellow humans increased expectations of forgiveness among perpetrator group members. Experiment 2 (N = 74) revealed the important role of subjective temporal distance in qualifying the effect of appealing to common humanity. Forgiveness expectations increased when a transgression was perceived as temporally distant rather than close. Experiment 3 (N = 70) found that expecting forgiveness was associated negatively with remorse for wrongdoing and revealed reduced empathy for victims as a mediator of the effect. Taken together, the findings reveal that factors shown to encourage forgiveness among victims can also create corresponding expectations among perpetrators. Unfortunately, this process is more likely to damage than repair intergroup relations.

Context shapes social judgments of positive emotion suppression and expression

It is generally considered socially undesirable to suppress the expression of positive emotion. However, previous research has not considered the role that social context plays in governing appropriate emotion regulation. We investigated a context in which it may be more appropriate to suppress than express positive emotion, hypothesizing that positive emotion expressions would be considered inappropriate when the valence of the expressed emotion (i.e., positive) did not match the valence of the context (i.e., negative). Six experiments (N = 1,621) supported this hypothesis: when there was a positive emotion-context mismatch, participants rated targets who suppressed positive emotion as more appropriate, and evaluated them more positively than targets who expressed positive emotion. This effect occurred even when participants were explicitly made aware that suppressing targets were experiencing mismatched emotion for the context (e.g., feeling positive in a negative context), suggesting that appropriate emotional expression is key to these effects. These studies are among the first to provide empirical evidence that social costs to suppression are not inevitable, but instead are dependent on context. Expressive suppression can be a socially useful emotion regulation strategy in situations that call for it.

Only human: hostile human norms can reduce legitimization of intergroup discrimination by perpetrators of historical atrocities.

We investigated the effects of salient shared humanity with a benevolent or hostile human norm on perpetrators of historical atrocities. Our findings suggest that a focus on benevolent superordinate humanity enables perpetrators to legitimize intergroup discrimination and preserve existing negative attitudes towards victims. In Expt 1 (N=135), salient shared humanity with a human norm of benevolence and kindness preserved the perceived legitimacy of intergroup inequality, while exposure to a hostile norm of human nature reduced perceived legitimacy. Expt 2 (N=51) replicated the association between exposure to a hostile human norm and reduced legitimization when perpetrator intentions were unambiguously negative. In contrast, when perpetrator intentions were ambiguous, a hostile human norm had no effect on perceived legitimacy. Our findings qualify previous research, and demonstrate that the effects of emphasizing shared humanity are not equivalent or universally positive for perpetrators and victims.

When Aspirations Exceed Expectations: Quixotic Hope Increases Depression among Students

A paradox exists in modern schooling: students are simultaneously more positive about the future and more depressed than ever. We suggest that these two phenomena may be linked. Two studies demonstrated that students are more likely to be depressed when educational aspirations exceed expectations. In Study 1 (N = 85) aspiring to a thesis grade higher than one expected predicted greater depression at the beginning and end of the academic year. In Study 2 (N = 2820) aspiring to a level of education (e.g., attending college) higher than one expected to achieve predicted greater depression cross-sectionally and five years later. In both cases the negative effects of aspiring high while expecting low persisted even after controlling for whether or not students achieved their educational aspirations. These findings highlight the danger of teaching students to aspire higher without also investing time and money to ensure that students can reasonably expect to achieve their educational goals.