Impact of Conflict Resolution Strategies on Perception of Agency, Communion and Power Roles Evaluation

Open access


Two experiments probed the role of strategies used in social conflicts on perception of agency and communion. In study 1, persons who revealed prosocial orientation were perceived as less agentic, but more communal than those who revealed competitive orientation. In study 2 these findings were replicated in the context of organizational conflict, those who decided to use confrontational strategies were also perceived as more agentic, although less communal than these who used cooperative strategies. In line with the theory of power effects on objectification of social targets, the perceived agency and communion were differently linked to superior’s and subordinate’s evaluation. While perceived agency predicted the subordinate’s evaluation, perceived communion predicted superior’s evaluation, but not the other way round. Moreover, perception of communion (but not agency) mediated the negative effect of confrontational strategies on supervisor’s evaluation. On the other hand, perceived agency suppressed the effect of strategies on subordinate’s evaluation.

Abele, A. E., & Bruckmüller, S. (2011). The bigger one of the “Big Two”? Preferential processing of communal information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 935-948.

Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 751-763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751

Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (in press). Communal and Agentic Content in Social Cognition: A Dual Perspective Model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.

Bar-Tal, D. (2011). Intergroup conflicts and their resolution: Social psychological perspective. New York: Psychology Press.

Cichocka, A., & Bilewicz, M. (2010). Co się kryje w nieistotnych efektach statystycznych? Możliwości zastosowania analizy supresji w naukach społecznych. [What’s hidden in nonsignificant statistical effects? Suppression analysis in social sciences.]. Psychologia Społeczna, 5, 191-198.

Cislak, A. (2013a). Effects of power on social perception: All your boss can see is agency. Social Psychology, 44, 139-147. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000139

Cislak, A. (2013b). Władza a rozwiązywanie konfliktów. Presented at 10th General Meeting of Polish Society of Social Psychology, Kraków, Poland.

Cislak, A., & Wojciszke, B. (2008). Agency and communion are inferred from actions serving interests of self or others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1103-1110. doi:10.1002/ejsp.554

Coleman, P. T., & Deutsch, M. (2006). Kilka wskazówek, jak rozwijać twórcze podejście do konfliktu. W M. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Red.), Rozwiązywanie konfliktów Teoria i praktyka (ss. 351-361). Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.

De Cremer, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2001). Why prosocials exhibit greater cooperation than proselfs: the roles of social responsibility and reciprocity. European Journal of Personality, 15(S1), S5-S18. doi:10.1002/per.418

De Dreu, C. K. W., Greer, L. L., Handgraaf, M. J. J., Shalvi, S., Van Kleef, G.A., Baas, M., … Feith, S. W. W. (2010). The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Regulates Parochial Altruism in Intergroup Conflict Among Humans. Science, 328(5984), 1408-1411. doi:10.1126/science.1189047

Deutsch, M. (2006). Współpraca i rywalizacja. W M. Deutsch & P. T.Coleman (Red.), Rozwiązywanie konfliktów Teoria i praktyka (ss. 21-40). Kraków: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.

Deutsch, M., & Coleman, P. T. (2006). Rozwiązywanie konfliktów. Teoria i praktyka. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48(6), 621-628.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 77-83.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S., T. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture. (2. wyd.). London: SAGE Publications.

Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453-466.

Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1068 -1074. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x

Golec, A., & Federico, C. (2004). Understanding Responses to Political Conflict: Interactive Effects of the Need for Closure and Salient Conflict Schemas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 750-762.

Goodwin, S. A., Gubin, A., Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2000). Power Can Bias Impression Processes: Stereotyping Subordinates by Default and by Design. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 227-256.

Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 111-127. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.111

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Pobrano z

Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?: The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 81-92.

Judd, C., James-Hawkins, L., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Kashima, Y. (2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 899-913.

Keltner, D. J., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265-284. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265

MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the Mediation, Confounding and Suppression Effect. Prevention Science, 1(4), 173-181. doi:10.1023/A:1026595011371

Magee, J. C., Galinsky, A. D., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2007). Power, Propensity to Negotiate, and Moving First in Competitive Interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 200-212. doi:10.1177/0146167206294413

Marcus, E. C. (2006). Konflikt i procesy zmiany. W M. Deutsch & P.T. Coleman (Red.), Rozwiązywanie konfliktów Teoria i praktyka (ss. 362-377). Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.

Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. (2001). When Power Does Not Corrupt: Superior Individuation Processes Among Powerful Perceivers.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 549-565. doi:10.1037//0O22-3514.81.4.549

Overbeck, J. R., Tiedens, L. Z., &Brion, S. (2006). The powerful want to, the powerless have to: perceived constraint moderates causal attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 479-496. doi:10.1002/ejsp.353

Peeters, G. (1992). Evaluative meanings of adjectives in vitro and in context: Some theoretical implications and practical consequences of positive negative asymmetry and behavioural-adaptive concepts of evaluation. Psychologia Belgica, 32, 211-231.

Reykowski, J., & Cislak, A. (2011). Socio-psychological approaches to conflict resolution. W D. Bar-Tal (Red.), Intergroup conflicts and their resolution: Social psychological perspective (ss. 241-266). New York: Psychology Press.

Smith, P. K., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Nonconscious Effects of Power on Basic Approach and Avoidance Tendencies. Social Cognition, 26, 1-24.

Stouten, J., de Cremer, D., & van Dijk, E. (2005). All is well that ends well, at least for proselfs: emotional reactions to equality violation as a function of social value orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(6), 767-783. doi:10.1002/ejsp.276

Van Lange, P. A. M. (1999). The Pursuit of Joint Outcomes and Equality in Outcomes: An Integrative Model of Social Value Orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 337-349.

Wojciszke, B. (1994). Multiple meanings of behavior: Construing actions in terms of competence or morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 222-232.

Wojciszke, B. (1997). Parallels between Competence- versus Moralityrelated Traits and individualistic versus Collectivistic Values.European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 245-256.

Wojciszke, B. (2005a). Affective Concomitants of Information on Morality and Competence. European Psychologist, 10(1), 60-70.

Wojciszke, B. (2005b). Morality and competence in person- and selfperception.European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 155 - 188.

Wojciszke, B. (2010). Sprawczość i wspólnotowość. Podstawowe wymiary spostrzegania społecznego. Sopot: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.

Wojciszke, B., & Abele, A. E. (2008). The primacy of communion over agency and its reversals in evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1139-1147. doi:10.1002/ejsp.549

Wojciszke, B., Baryla, W., Parzuchowski, M., Szymkow, A., & Abele, A. E. (2011). Self-esteem is dominated by agentic over communal information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(5), 617-627. doi:10.1002/ejsp.791

Wojciszke, B., Dowhyluk, M., & Jaworski, M. (1998). Moral and competence-related traits: How do they differ? Polish Psychological Bulletin, 29, 283-294.

Wojciszke, B., & Szlendak, M. A. (2010). Skale do pomiaru orientacji sprawczej i wspólnotowej. Psychologia Społeczna, 5, 57-70.

Wojciszke, B., & Szymków, A. (2003). Emotions related to others’ competence and morality. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 34, 135-142.

Polish Psychological Bulletin

The Journal of Committee for Psychological Sciences of Polish Academy of Sciences

Journal Information

CiteScore 2016: 0.33

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.185
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.258


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 233 233 28
PDF Downloads 123 123 17