Noah Eisenkraft

Dynamic Associations among Somatic Complaints, Human Energy, and Discretionary Behaviors: Experiences with Pain Fluctuations at Work

Using data from two experience-sampling studies, this paper investigates the dynamic relationships between discretionary behaviors at work—voluntary tasks that employees perform—and internal somatic complaints, focusing specifically on a person’s pain fluctuations. Integrating theories of human energy with evidence from the organizational, psychological, and medical sciences, we argue that pain both depletes and redirects the allocation of employees’ energy. We hypothesize that somatic pain is associated with depleted resources and lowered work engagement, which in turn are related to ebbs and flows in discretionary behaviors, but that people will habituate to the negative effects of pain over time. Data from the two studies largely support our hypotheses. Study 1 explores the daily experiences of a sample of office workers with chronic pain, while Study 2 extends the findings to a larger non-clinical population and examines the effect of momentary pain during the workday. Our results suggest that pain fluctuations, through their effects on two forms of human energy, potential and in-use energy, are associated with increased withdrawal and a decrease in proactive extra-role behaviors at work. The results also suggest that employees who have experienced chronic pain for a longer time are less affected by the normally depleting effects of pain.

The Social Perception of Emotional Abilities: Expanding What We Know About Observer Ratings of Emotional Intelligence

We examine the social perception of emotional intelligence (EI) through the use of observer ratings. Individuals frequently judge others emotional abilities in real-world settings, yet we know little about the properties of such ratings. This article examines the social perception of EI and expands the evidence to evaluate its reliability and cross-judge agreement, as well as its convergent, divergent, and predictive validity. Three studies use real-world colleagues as observers and data from 2,521 participants. Results indicate significant consensus across observers about targets EI, moderate but significant self-observer agreement, and modest but relatively consistent discriminant validity across the components of EI. Observer ratings significantly predicted interdependent task performance, even after controlling for numerous factors. Notably, predictive validity was greater for observer-rated than for self-rated or ability-tested EI. We discuss the minimal associations of observer ratings with ability-tested EI, study limitations, future directions, and practical implications.

On the Relative Importance of Individual-Level Characteristics and Dyadic Interaction Effects in Distributive Negotiations: Variance Partitioning Evidence from a Twins Study

Negotiations are inherently dyadic. Negotiators’ individual-level characteristics may not only make them perform better or worse in general, but also may make them particularly well- or poorly-suited to negotiate with a particular counterpart. The present research estimates the extent to which performance in a distributive negotiation is affected by (1) the negotiators’ individual-level characteristics and (2) dyadic interaction effects that are defined by the unique pairings between the negotiators and their counterparts. Because negotiators cannot interact multiple times without carryover effects, we estimated the relative importance of these factors with a new methodology that used twin siblings as stand-ins for one another. Participants engaged in a series of one-on-one negotiations with counterparts while, elsewhere, their co-twins engaged in the same series of one-on-one negotiations with the co-twins of those counterparts. In these data, dyadic interaction effects explained more variation in negotiation economic outcomes than did individual differences, whereas individual differences explain more than twice as much of the variation in subjective negotiation outcomes than did dyadic interaction effects. These results suggest dyadic interaction effects represent an understudied area for future research, particularly with regard to the economic outcomes of negotiations.

We Know Who Likes Us, but Not Who Competes Against Us

Research on dyadic meta-accuracy suggests that people can accurately judge how their acquaintances feel toward them. However, existing studies have focused exclusively on positive feelings, such as liking. We present the first research on dyadic meta-accuracy for competition, a common dynamic among work colleagues. Data from the sales staff at a car dealership and students working on project teams suggest that the prevailing model of dyadic meta-accuracy breaks down for judgments of competition. For liking, projecting one’s own feelings promotes dyadic meta-accuracy because colleagues tend to reciprocate each other’s liking. For competition, the tendency to compete against superior performers reduces reciprocity and renders self-projection ineffective. You can accurately estimate how much your colleagues like you, but are unlikely to know how much those same colleagues compete against you.