Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Motivation and Emotion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis version 2. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briton, N. J., & Hall, J. A. (1995). Beliefs about female and male nonverbal communication. Sex Roles, 32, 79–90. doi:10.1007/BF01544758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory: Administrator’s guide. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 845–857. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.85.4.845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, K., & Noller, P. (1988). Decoding deception: A look at the process. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 217–233. doi:10.1007/BF00987489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, M. L. (1995). A parallel process model of nonverbal communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19, 3–29. doi:10.1007/BF02173410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research, rev. ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, W. C. (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2008). The automaticity of emotion recognition. Emotion, 8, 81–95. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.8.1.81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, P. E. (1933). Some characteristics of the good judge of personality. The Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 42–58.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, 125 NI, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Judith A. Hall & Danielle C. Blanch

  2. University of Michigan, Flint, Flint, MI, USA

    Terrence G. Horgan

  3. Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Nora A. Murphy

  4. UserWorks, Inc., Silver Spring, MD, USA

    Janelle C. Rosip

  5. University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

    Marianne Schmid Mast

Authors
  1. Judith A. Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Danielle C. Blanch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Terrence G. Horgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nora A. Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Janelle C. Rosip
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marianne Schmid Mast
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judith A. Hall.

Additional information

Authors two through six are listed alphabetically.

Appendix: Description of motivation manipulations

Appendix: Description of motivation manipulations

Study 1

Monetary: “In order to encourage your very best efforts on this task, we will award prizes based on your accuracy scores. The average accuracy of a norm group on this test is 170 correct out of 220 items. If your score is between 180 and 185, you will receive a prize of $15.00. If your score is between 185 and 190, you will receive $30.00, and if your score is above 190, you will receive a prize of $50.00!! These goals are not unrealistic because we know that people can score this high. This offer is for real so do your best!”

Female relevant: “The judgment of nonverbal cues (such as on the test you are about to take) is a very important skill in daily life. Intuitive skill of this kind plays a crucial role in interpersonal harmony and the development of intimacy. One’s ability to be helpful and responsive to others is tied to the ability to judge their feelings. Emotional sensitivity to others is related to caring, nurturing, and bonding between parents and infants, and contributes to warm and understanding relationships at all ages.”

Male relevant: “The judgment of nonverbal cues (such as on the test you are about to take) is a very important skill in daily life. Analytical skill of this kind plays a crucial role in deciphering other people’s motives as well as their strengths and weaknesses. Shrewd judgment of others is related to leadership and the ability to make confident independent judgments of others, whether you are working with others or competing with them. The person who comes out ‘on top’ in social interactions is likely to be someone with excellent interpersonal judgment skills.”

Study 2

Monetary: Participants read that participants scoring in the top 5% of participants’ scores would receive a prize of $50.00.

Male relevant and female relevant: Worded almost identically to Study 1.

Study 3

Monetary: Participants read that they would win $15.00 if they got more than 13 of the 15 test items correct.

Male relevant and female relevant: Worded almost identically to Study 1.

Studies 4 and 5

Monetary: Participants were told that everyone in the top 10% would win $50.00 and the top scoring participant would win $100.00.

Ego: “Skill in judging other people is related to overall intelligence, cognitive aptitude, and other intellectual skills that can be measured and used in school and work. In sum, a person who is generally smart is a good judge of other people’s characteristics based on briefly presented cues.”

Male relevant: “Skill in judging other people is related to ability to gain and maintain leadership, advancement in organizations, the capacity to skillfully read others’ motives and intentions, ability to achieve strategic advantage over others, ability to persuade others, ability to compete successfully against others, and successful negotiation in decision-making situations.”

Female relevant: “Skill in judging other people is related to ability to maintain intimate relationships and friendships with others, whether others view you as an interpersonally sensitive and warm person, the capacity to respond to others’ emotional needs, the ability to be emotionally attuned to others, ability to build trust and interpersonal harmony, and success in creating group cohesion and rapport.”

Studies 6 and 7

Ego: “Ability to judge another person’s personality traits is an important part of what is called social intelligence, or the ability to accurately perceive others and to make wise choices in terms of your own behavior towards others. Social intelligence, in turn, is an important component of overall, general intelligence. Research shows positive correlations between overall intelligence and other cognitive abilities and scores on nonverbal judgments tasks such as the one you are about to take.”

Studies 8 and 9

Forewarning: Participants were told they would watch a video of a man talking about himself and would afterwards answer questions about what he had said and what he did nonverbally. In the control condition, participants were just told they would watch a video of a man talking about himself, with no mention that they needed to remember his behavior.

Studies 10 and 11

Exhortation: Participants were told that they should remember as much as possible about the behavior of the target person. Participants in the control condition were forewarned that they would be asked to remember this information, too, but they were not urged to try hard. Thus, the control condition in this study was the same as the forewarning (motivation) condition in Studies 8 and 9.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hall, J.A., Blanch, D.C., Horgan, T.G. et al. Motivation and interpersonal sensitivity: Does it matter how hard you try?. Motiv Emot 33, 291–302 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-009-9128-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-009-9128-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation