Motivation and Emotion

, 33:291 | Cite as

Motivation and interpersonal sensitivity: Does it matter how hard you try?

  • Judith A. Hall
  • Danielle C. Blanch
  • Terrence G. Horgan
  • Nora A. Murphy
  • Janelle C. Rosip
  • Marianne Schmid Mast
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Across 11 experiments, motivation to be accurate on a test of interpersonal sensitivity was manipulated using five methods for increasing motivation (monetary incentive, ego motive, forewarning that accuracy would be tested, exhortation to try hard, and framing the interpersonal sensitivity test description to suggest that performance was gender relevant). Participants were then given an interpersonal sensitivity test consisting of interpreting the meanings of cues or recalling a target person’s appearance, nonverbal cues, or spoken utterances. Neither the individual studies, nor a meta-analysis of the 11 studies, found that the motivation manipulations improved participants’ accuracy on interpersonal sensitivity tests that involved the processing of nonverbal cues. However, motivation had a significant positive effect when sensitivity was defined as recall of verbal cues. There was no evidence that any of the manipulations had a differential impact on men and women.

Keywords

Meta-analysis Motivation Interpersonal sensitivity Accuracy Nonverbal Verbal Gender 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Parts of this research were supported by a National Science Foundation grant to the first author. We thank Stephen G. Harkins for comments on the manuscript as well as the many undergraduate assistants who helped conduct the studies.

References

  1. Ambady, N., Bernieri, F. J., & Richeson, J. A. (2000). Toward a histology of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 201–271. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(00)80006-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambady, N., & Gray, H. M. (2002). On being sad and mistaken: Mood effects on the accuracy of thin-slice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 947–961. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.947.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, D. E., DePaulo, B. M., Ansfield, M. E., Tickle, J. J., & Green, E. (1999). Beliefs about cues to deception: Mindless stereotypes or untapped wisdom? Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23, 67–89. doi: 10.1023/A:1021387326192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis version 2. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.Google Scholar
  5. Briton, N. J., & Hall, J. A. (1995). Beliefs about female and male nonverbal communication. Sex Roles, 32, 79–90. doi: 10.1007/BF01544758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chepenik, L. G., Cornew, L. A., & Farah, M. J. (2007). The influence of sad mood on cognition. Emotion, 7, 802–811. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.802.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  8. Costanzo, M., & Archer, D. (1989). Interpreting the expressive behavior of others: The Interpersonal Perception Task. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 225–245. doi: 10.1007/BF00990295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Davitz, J. R., Beldoch, M., Blau, S., Dimitrovsky, L., Levitt, E., Kempner Levy, P., et al. (1964). Personality, perceptual, and cognitive correlates of emotional sensitivity. In J. R. Davitz (Ed.), The communication of emotional meaning (pp. 57–68). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. DePaulo, B. M., & Friedman, H. S. (1998). Nonverbal communication. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 3–40). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  12. Driscoll, D. M., Kelly, J. R., & Henderson, W. L. (1998). Can perceivers identify likelihood to sexually harass? Sex Roles, 38, 557–588. doi: 10.1023/A:1018726309555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fiske, S. T., & Morling, B. (1996). Stereotyping as a function of personal control motives and capacity constraints: The odd couple of power and anxiety. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, Vol. 3: The interpersonal context (pp. 322–346). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  14. Forrest, J. A., & Feldman, R. S. (2000). Detecting deception and judge’s involvement: Lower task involvement leads to better lie detection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 118–125. doi: 10.1177/0146167200261011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gesn, P. R., & Ickes, W. (1999). The development of meaning contexts for empathic accuracy: Channel and sequence effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 746–761. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.4.746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory: Administrator’s guide. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 845–857. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.85.4.845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hall, J. A., Andrzejewski, S. A., & Yopchick, J. E. (in press) Psychosocial correlates of interpersonal sensitivity: A meta-analysis. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. doi: 1007/s10919-009-0070-5.
  20. Hall, J. A., & Schmid Mast, M. (2007). Sources of accuracy in the empathic accuracy paradigm. Emotion, 7, 438–446. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.438.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall, J. A., & Schmid Mast, M. (2008). Are women always more interpersonally sensitive than men? Impact of content domain and motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 144–155. doi: 10.1177/0146167207309192.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hall, J. A., Murphy, N. A., & Schmid Mast, M. (2006a). Recall of nonverbal cues: Exploring a new definition of interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30, 141–155. doi: 10.1007/s10919-006-0013-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall, J. A., Rosip, J. C., Smith LeBeau, L., Horgan, T. G., & Carter, J. D. (2006b). Attributing the sources of accuracy in unequal-power dyadic communication: Who is better and why? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 18–27. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.01.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hall, J. A., Smith LeBeau, L., Gordon Reinoso, J., & Thayer, F. (2001). Status, gender, and nonverbal behavior in candid and posed photographs: A study of conversations between university employees. Sex Roles, 44, 677–691. doi: 10.1023/A:1012298230455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hänggi, Y. (2004). Stress and emotion recognition: An Internet experiment using stress induction. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 63, 113–125. doi: 10.1024/1421-0185.63.2.113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Horgan, T. G., & Smith, J. L. (2006). Interpersonal reasons for interpersonal perceptions: Gender-congruent purpose goals and nonverbal judgment accuracy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30, 127–140. doi: 10.1007/s10919-006-0012-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hurd, K., & Noller, P. (1988). Decoding deception: A look at the process. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 217–233. doi: 10.1007/BF00987489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ickes, W., Gesn, P. R., & Graham, T. (2000). Gender differences in empathic accuracy: Differential ability or differential motivation? Personal Relationships, 7, 95–109. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00006.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ickes, W., Stinson, L., Bissonnette, V., & Garcia, S. (1990). Naturalistic social cognition: Empathic accuracy in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 730–742. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jamieson, J. P., & Harkins, S. G. (2007). Mere effort and stereotype threat performance effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 544–564. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.544.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Klein, K. J. K., & Hodges, S. D. (2001). Gender differences, motivation, and empathic accuracy: When it pays to understand. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 720–730. doi: 10.1177/0146167201276007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Koenig, A. M., & Eagly, A. H. (2005). Stereotype threat in men on a test of social sensitivity. Sex Roles, 52, 489–496. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-3714-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marsh, A. A., & Blair, R. J. R. (2008). Deficits in facial affect recognition among antisocial populations: A meta-analysis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 32, 454–465. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.08.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. McClure, E. B. (2000). A meta-analytic review of sex differences in facial expression processing and their development in infants, children, and adolescents. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 424–453. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.424.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Meiran, N., Netzer, T., Netzer, S., Itzhak, D., & Rechnitz, O. (1994). Do tests of nonverbal decoding ability measure sensitivity to nonverbal cues? Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 223–244. doi: 10.1007/BF02170027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nowicki, S., Jr., & Richman, D. (1985). The effect of standard, motivation, and strategy instructions on the facial processing accuracy of internal and external subjects. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 354–364. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(85)90004-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. O’Brien, L. T., & Crandall, C. S. (2003). Stereotype threat and arousal: Effects on women’s math performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 782–789. doi: 10.1177/0146167203029006010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Patterson, M. L. (1995). A parallel process model of nonverbal communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19, 3–29. doi: 10.1007/BF02173410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Patterson, M. L., & Stockbridge, E. (1998). Effects of cognitive demand and judgment strategy on person perception accuracy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22, 253–263. doi: 10.1023/A:1022996522793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Phillips, L. H., Tunstall, M., & Channon, S. (2007). Exploring the role of working memory in dynamic social cue decoding using dual task methodology. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31, 137–152. doi: 10.1007/s10919-007-0026-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Porter, S., McCabe, S., Woodworth, M., & Peace, K. A. (2007). ‘Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration’…or is it? An investigation of the impact of motivation and feedback on deception detection. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 297–309. doi: 10.1348/135532506X143958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research, rev. ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Rosenthal, R., Hall, J. A., DiMatteo, M. R., Rogers, P. L., & Archer, D. (1979). Sensitivity to nonverbal communication: The PONS test. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Rosip, J. C., & Hall, J. A. (2004). Knowledge of nonverbal cues, gender, and nonverbal decoding accuracy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 267–286. doi: 10.1007/s10919-004-4159-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schroeder, J. E. (1995). Self-concept, social anxiety, and interpersonal perception skills. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 955–958. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(95)00108-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schmid Mast, M., & Hall, J. A. (2004). Who is the boss and who is not? Accuracy of judging status. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 145–165. doi: 10.1023/B:JONB.0000039647.94190.21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schutz, W. C. (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  50. Snodgrass, S. E. (1985). Women’s intuition: The effect of subordinate role on interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 146–155. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Snodgrass, S. E. (1992). Further effects of role versus gender on interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 154–158. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.62.1.154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 29–39. doi: 10.1037/h0076857.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Thomas, G., & Maio, G. R. (2008). Man, I feel like a woman: When and how gender-role motivation helps mind-reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1165–1179. doi: 10.1037/a0013067.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Toner, H. L., & Gates, G. R. (1985). Emotional traits and recognition of facial expression of emotion. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 9, 48–66. doi: 10.1007/BF00987558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2008). The automaticity of emotion recognition. Emotion, 8, 81–95. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.8.1.81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Vernon, P. E. (1933). Some characteristics of the good judge of personality. The Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 42–58.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judith A. Hall
    • 1
  • Danielle C. Blanch
    • 1
  • Terrence G. Horgan
    • 2
  • Nora A. Murphy
    • 3
  • Janelle C. Rosip
    • 4
  • Marianne Schmid Mast
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, 125 NINortheastern UniversityBostonUSA
  2. 2.University of Michigan, FlintFlintUSA
  3. 3.Loyola Marymount UniversityLos AngelesUSA
  4. 4.UserWorks, Inc.Silver SpringUSA
  5. 5.University of NeuchâtelNeuchâtelSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations