Interpersonal Problems and the Social Reality of ......Interpersonal problems are particularly...
57
Interpersonal Problems and the Social Reality of Psychological Need Fulfillment by Nicole Cosentino A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Psychological Clinical Science University of Toronto © Copyright by Nicole Cosentino 2019
Transcript of Interpersonal Problems and the Social Reality of ......Interpersonal problems are particularly...
Interpersonal Problems and the Social Reality of Psychological
Need Fulfillment
by
Nicole Cosentino
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements
for the degree of Master of Arts
Department of Psychological Clinical Science
University of Toronto
© Copyright by Nicole Cosentino 2019
ii
Interpersonal Problems and the Social Reality of Psychological Need
Fulfillment
Nicole Cosentino
Master of Arts
Department of Psychological Clinical Science
University of Toronto
2019
Abstract
People with interpersonal problems have difficulty adapting to situational demands and
navigating social hierarchies, which has important implications for the satisfaction of their basic
psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Though people with
interpersonal problems are likely to experience frustrated need fulfillment, the mechanisms
explaining this relationship are not well understood. One such mechanism is interpersonal
perception specifically the way a person is perceived by their peers (target effects) and the way
they perceive others (perceiver effects). This study investigated whether target and/or perceiver
effects mediated the relationship between interpersonal problems and psychological need
fulfillment. Undergraduate students participated in a group interaction task. Measures of
personality, interpersonal problems, and psychological need fulfillment were completed pre-task
and need fulfillment was measured again post-task. Results demonstrated that people with
dominance-related problems reported lower autonomy and relatedness need satisfaction post-task
in part because they tended to perceive their peers as competitive.
iii
Acknowledgments
I would like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Marc A. Fournier and Dr. Amanda A. Uliaszek
for their supervision and guidance over this past year. This project would not have been possible
without their mentorship and encouragement. I would also like to thank my committee members
Dr. Wil Cunningham and Dr. Brett Q. Ford for their review of my thesis and for their valuable
feedback throughout its stages of development. Thank you to my cohort; Jacob Koudys, Sonja
Chu, Tahira Gulamani, and Ivy Cho; for their friendship and support during these past two years.
Thank you to my family for their unconditional belief in me. Thank you to my friends Brittany
Stuckless and Andrew Osbourne. I could not have gotten through such a challenging year
without you two. Finally, thank you to Erik Wing who has been my unflagging ally throughout
this process.
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii
Introduction .................................................................................................................................1 1
1.1 Personality and interpersonal problems ...............................................................................1
1.2 Social hierarchies and face-to-face groups ..........................................................................3
1.2.1 Social rank, attention, and influence ........................................................................3
1.2.2 Dimensions of social rank: Status and power ..........................................................4
1.2.3 Pathways to social rank: Dominance and prestige ...................................................5
1.3 Face-to-face groups and psychological needs ......................................................................6
1.3.1 Self-determination theory ........................................................................................6
1.3.2 Social environment and need fulfillment .................................................................7
1.4 Interpersonal perception and the social relations model ......................................................8
The Current Study .....................................................................................................................10 2
2.1 Hypotheses .........................................................................................................................10
2.1.1 Five-factor model of personality hypotheses .........................................................10
2.1.2 Interpersonal problems hypotheses ........................................................................12
Methods .....................................................................................................................................13 3
3.1 Participants .........................................................................................................................13
3.2 Procedure ...........................................................................................................................13
3.3 Measures ............................................................................................................................15
3.3.1 Big Five Inventory .................................................................................................15
3.3.2 Inventory of Interpersonal Problems .....................................................................16
v
3.3.3 State Need Fulfillment Scale .................................................................................17
3.3.4 Round-Robin Ratings.............................................................................................17
Results .......................................................................................................................................18 4
4.1 Exploratory factor analysis ................................................................................................18
4.2 Regression analyses ...........................................................................................................19
4.3 Mediation models with personality ....................................................................................20
4.4 Mediation models with interpersonal problems .................................................................21
Discussion .................................................................................................................................22 5
5.1 Limitations and Future Directions .....................................................................................26
5.2 Summary ............................................................................................................................27
References ......................................................................................................................................28
vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Study Sample
Table 2. Variance Components for Perceiver Effects, Target Effects, and Error Partitioned Using
Social Relations Modelling
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Pre-Task and Post-Task Measures
Table 4. Correlations between Pre-task and Post-Task State Need Fulfillment and Five-Factor
Personality, Interpersonal Problems, Perceiver and Target Effects
Table 5. Factor Loadings from Exploratory Factor Analyses Conducted with Perceiver and
Target Effects
Table 6. Correlations Among Perceiver and Target Effect Competence and Competitiveness
Subscales
Table 7. Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Post-Task Need Fulfillment from Perceiver
Effects, Target Effects, the Five-Factor Model of Personality, and Interpersonal Problems
Table 8. Mediation Models Predicting Post-Task State Need Fulfillment from Openness and
Dominance Mediated by Interpersonal Perceptions
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Scree plot generated from parallel analysis conducted with target effect items
Figure 2. Scree plot generated from parallel analysis conducted with perceiver effect items
Figure 3. Mediation model predicting total post-task state need fulfillment from openness to
experience mediated by competence target effects
Figure 4. Mediation model predicting post-task autonomy state need fulfillment from openness
to experience mediated by competence target effects
Figure 5. Mediation model predicting post-task competence state need fulfillment from openness
to experience mediated by competence target effects
Figure 6. Mediation model predicting post-task relatedness state need fulfillment from openness
to experience mediated by competence target effects
Figure 7. Mediation model predicting total post-task state need fulfillment from dominance
mediated by competitiveness perceiver effects
Figure 8. Mediation model predicting post-task autonomy state need fulfillment from dominance
mediated by competitiveness perceiver effects
Figure 9. Mediation model predicting post-task competence state need fulfillment from
dominance mediated by competitiveness perceiver effects
Figure 10. Mediation model predicting post-task relatedness state need fulfillment from
dominance mediated by competitiveness perceiver effects
1
Introduction 1
People with interpersonal problems often use ineffective strategies to navigate social interactions
and may struggle when adapting to situational demands (Alden, Wiggins, & Pincus, 1990; Girard
et al., 2017). In turn, these individuals typically experience poor social outcomes, including
worse social adjustment and less satisfaction across a diverse range of relationships (e.g.,
romantic partnerships, friendships, familial relationships; Gurtman, 1996; Horowitz, Alden,
Wiggins, & Pincus, 2000; Wilson, Revelle, Stroud, & Durbin, 2012; Vittengl, Clark, & Jarrett,
2003). Moreover, people with interpersonal problems are less likely to report feeling that their
needs are being met in social situations, which has detrimental effects for their overall subjective
well-being and personal growth (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Ryan & Deci,
2000; Deci & Ryan, 2008). The behavioural strategies that people implement in social settings
have consequences for the way they are perceived as well as for the impressions they form of
others. Given that people with interpersonal problems experience difficulties with social
interactions, both the way they perceive others and the way they tend to be perceived, may be
preventing their needs from being met. The primary purpose of the present research was to
investigate the role of interpersonal perceptions in mediating the relationship between
interpersonal problems and need-thwarting interaction experiences.
1.1 Personality and interpersonal problems
Interpersonal theory posits that all interpersonal constructs can be mapped along two orthogonal
dimensions: agency, which reflects a person's needs for autonomy, mastery, and control; and
communion, which reflects a person's needs for social connection and closeness (Bakan, 1966;
Wiggins, 1991). Agency and communion represent two broad and conceptually distinct classes
of interpersonal meta-constructs that encapsulate behaviors, traits, goals, values, efficacies,
strengths, and problems (Horowitz & Strack, 2011). Interpersonal problems along the dimension
of agency range from extreme dominance (i.e., domineering) to extreme submission (i.e.,
obsequious) while interpersonal problems along the dimension of communion range from
extreme nurturance (i.e., self-sacrificing) to extreme coldness (i.e., distancing oneself from
others) (Alden et al., 1990; Horowitz, Rosenberg, Baer, Ureno, & Villasenor, 1988).
Interpersonal problems around the agentic and communal dimensions can be combined to index
2
one's overall level of interpersonal distress (Alden et al., 1990; Gurtman, 1992; Horowitz et al.,
1988; Tracey, Rounds, & Gurtman, 1996; Wilson, Revelle, Stroud, & Durbin, 2013).
Together, agency and communion specify the structural dimensions underlying the
interpersonal circumplex (IPC), a circular model which conceptualizes interpersonal problems in
a two-dimensional space in terms of the type of problem and the severity of the associated
distress (Gurtman, 1995; Freedman, Ossorio, & Coffey, 1951; LaForge, 1977; LaForge, Leary,
Naboisek, Coffey, & Freedman, 1954; LaForge & Suczek, 1955; Leary, 1957). Indeed, the more
extreme a score on any one of these scales, the further away from the origin of the IPC it is
plotted, and the greater the amount of distress experienced (Gurtman, 1995). Although the IPC
captures both adaptive behavior and dysfunctional problems, it has long been held by
interpersonal theorists that people’s patterns of social behaviour tap the underlying dispositions
that they carry with them from situation to situation (Alden et al., 1990; Sullivan, 1953; Mischel,
1968). The IPC is thus capable of capturing the dispositional or trait-like features of personality
that are inherently interpersonal as well as the fluctuations in these features across interpersonal
situations (Fournier, Moskowitz, & Zuroff, 2011; Horowitz, 2004; Kiesler, 1983; Sullivan, 1953;
Wiggins, 2003).
Interpersonal problems represent important individual differences that can predict
meaningful outcomes for an individual (Horowitz, 2004; Kiesler, 1983; Wiggins, 2003). Indeed,
Costa and McCrae (2011) note that personality traits manifest as behaviours that are performed
in interpersonal contexts and so the five-factor model of personality cannot be considered
independent of interpersonal behaviours or problems. The dispositional nature of interpersonal
problems has been evidenced through the strong pattern of associations observed with the five-
factor model of personality. Those who report interpersonal distress also tend to self-report high
levels of neuroticism, while dominance and nurturance maintain associations with extraversion
and agreeableness (Soldz, Budman, Demby, & Merry, 1993; Tracey et al., 1996; Vittengl et al.,
2003). Much like other personality factors, interpersonal dysfunction also predicts
psychopathology. Indeed, interpersonal problems are observed across a range of DSM-5
diagnoses, including depression, generalized anxiety, social phobia, personality disorders, and
eating disorders (e.g., Drapeau, Perry, & Körner, 2012; Eng & Heimberg, 2006; McEvoy,
Burgess, Page, Nathan, & Fursland, 2012; Stangier, Esser, Leber, Risch, & Heidenreich, 2006;
3
Vittengl et al., 2003; Wright, Scott, Stepp, Hallquist, & Pilkonis, 2015). Interpersonal problems
also predict poor psychotherapeutic outcomes and have implications for therapeutic alliance,
which is the strongest predictor of symptom improvement identified in the treatment literature
(McEvoy, Burgess, & Nathan, 2013; McEvoy, Burgess, & Nathan, 2014; Puschner, Bauer,
Horowitz, & Kordy, 2005). Beyond clinical outcomes, people with interpersonal problems tend
to have difficulties in their close relationships, with domineering, vindictive, and cold behaviours
identified as some of the most detrimental to relationship satisfaction (Saffrey, Bartholemew,
Scharfe, Henderson, & Koopman, 2003). Those who report dominance- and/or nurturance-
related problems tend to lack insight into their dysfunction, often endorsing self-efficacy in the
domains with which they also report experiencing difficulties (Locke & Sadler, 2007). Overall,
the rigid response styles of those with interpersonal problems make it challenging for them to
adapt their behaviour in social settings, achieve their goals, and meet their needs (Girard et al.,
2007).
1.2 Social hierarchies and face-to-face groups
1.2.1 Social rank, attention, and influence
Interpersonal problems are particularly salient during group interactions when individuals are
expected to flexibly adapt to situational demands of cooperating with or competing against
others in order to both get along and get ahead (Cheng & Tracy, 2014; Girard et al., 2007).
Evolutionary pressures have promoted group living among humans and, in these group settings,
hierarchies naturally emerge (Cheng & Tracy, 2014; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Indeed,
hierarchies occur across contexts and cultures and serve important functions (Cheng & Tracy,
2014; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). The purpose of hierarchical structures is to regulate access to
resources as well as streamline group decision-making, promote social coordination, and
minimize interpersonal conflict amongst group members who would otherwise fight for control
(Báles, 1950; Berger, Rosenholtz, & Zelditch, 1980; Cheng & Tracy, 2014; Magee & Galinsky,
2008). Within any given hierarchy, lower-ranked individuals are expected to carry out the
directives of a smaller number of higher-ranked individuals and this ranking facilitates social
harmony while maximizing efficiency (Anderson and Kilduff, 2009; Magee & Galinsky, 2008).
4
Hierarchical structures are formed by rank-ordering individuals in terms of attention and
influence, a process known as hierarchical differentiation (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972;
Chance, 1967; Fiske, 1993; Hogg, 2001; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Attention is usually directed
towards individuals who have achieved high rank within a hierarchy (Fiske, 1993). People who
receive attention from the group are looked at more often during group interactions and thus gain
prominence amongst their peers (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009a; Anderson & Kilduff, 2009b;
Fiske, 1993; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). In turn, prominent people are more likely to have
influence and control over group decision-making (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009a; Anderson &
Kilduff, 2009b). These individuals contribute more during group discussions and tend to exert
influence through either force or persuasion (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009a; Redhead, Cheng,
Driver, Foulsham, & O’Gorman, 2019). Their capacities to influence are partly due to
dispositional traits (e.g., good interpersonal skills, extraversion) but are also facilitated by their
relative ranking in the social order (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009a; Anderson & Kilduff, 2009b).
Those lower in the hierarchical structure are more likely to comply with the demands of those
who have secured a higher ranking (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009a; Cartwright, 1959; Lewin, 1951;
Magee & Galinsky, 2008).
1.2.2 Dimensions of social rank: Status and power
The empirical literature has identified two dimensions along which hierarchy is organized: social
status and social power (Cheng & Tracy, 2014; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Social status is
indexed by the respect that one holds among their peers and so it is entirely dependent on how
one is regarded by peers (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009a; Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Spataro, &
Chatman, 2006; Cheng & Tracy, 2014; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Ridgeway & Erickson, 2000).
Group members determine which skills and abilities are necessary to achieve meaningful
objectives and then subsequently decide which of their peers possess the qualities most valued by
the collective (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009a; Hogg, 2001; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Individuals
whose profile of skills and traits best match those sought by the group will tend to attain status
and occupy top-ranking positions within the hierarchy while the remaining lower-ranked
individuals become subordinates (Hogg, 2001; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Goals and needs will
inevitably vary across groups and so different groups will value different skills and abilities
(Berger et al., 1972; Owens & Sutton, 2001; Savin-Willams, 1979). As such, a person may have
5
high status in one group to which they belong but low status in another. Regardless, status is
freely conferred by the group, not seized through bullying or coercion, and so those with status
tend to be both admired and influential (Anderson, John, Keltner, & Kring, 2001).
In contrast to social status, which is based on positive evaluations formed by group
members, social power is based on who controls the resources that have been accrued within a
hierarchy (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009a; Blau, 1964, 1977; Depret & Fiske, 1993; Keltner,
Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Thibaut &
Kelley, 1959). Indeed, the magnitude of one's social power tends to correlate with the scarcity
and the importance of the resource to which they have access (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). To
access socially valued resources (e.g., money, opportunities), group members with less social
power must appeal directly to the socially powerful or perform duties or actions that are likely to
be rewarded (Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Conversely, those with social
power can administer punishment to their subordinates as they see fit (Magee & Galinsky, 2008).
Altogether, the socially powerful control the outcomes of others (Friske, 1993) and get more
attention because their behaviour has important consequences for subordinates (Friske, 1993).
Having social power consequently means enjoying significant influence over group decision-
making processes despite not always being well liked or respected (Collins, 1990). While their
control often assures their influence, the latter is not freely given to the socially powerful and
these individuals are often met with resistance from the group (Friske, 1993).
1.2.3 Pathways to social rank: Dominance and prestige
Because only a small number of individuals can occupy top-ranking positions within a hierarchy,
social status and social power are both considered scarce resources. Two pathways to rank
allocation, prestige and dominance, have been identified in the empirical literature and are
informed by evolutionary patterns in human motivation and behaviour (Cheng, Tracy, &
Henrich, 2010; Cheng, Tracy, Foulsham, Kingstone, & Henrich, 2013; Henrich & Gil-White,
2001). This theoretical approach to rank allocation asserts that those who display prestige and
dominance attain social status and social power, respectively (Cheng & Tracy, 2014). They are
consequently ranked higher within social hierarchies (Cheng &Tracy, 2014). Prestige is earned
by individuals who demonstrate competence and expertise, which lead them to be both respected
6
and emulated by lower-ranking members (Cheng & Tracy, 2014). Prestige represents a route to
gaining social status as people with prestige are admired and valued for their skill set (Cheng &
Tracy, 2014). Moreover, their peers voluntarily grant them influence over lower-ranking
members because it is recognized that individuals with prestige have knowledge that should be
shared to accomplish group goals (Cheng & Tracy, 2014).
The second route to social ranking is dominance (Cheng et al., 2010, 2013; Cheng &
Tracy, 2014; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001). At its most benign, dominance is associated with a
tendency to outwardly present as confident and self-assured, which promotes one's vocal
contribution to group discussions (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, 1986;
Wiggins, 1979). This characteristic makes dominant people more likely to assume leadership
roles (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Buss & Craik, 1980; Lord et al., 1986; Wiggins, 1979).
However, individuals high in dominance are also more likely to engage in bullying behaviours
with the intention of seizing higher social ranking relative to their peers rather than earn their
place through garnering authentic admiration and respect from others (Cheng & Tracy, 2014).
The most common behavioural strategy implemented by those high in dominance is physical and
psychological coercion, through which dominant individuals manipulate others by making
threats and engaging in intimidation so that others comply with their demands (Cheng & Tracy,
2014). This coercive compliance is often observed amongst less powerful group members largely
out of fear that socially-valued resources will be withheld, or that punishment will be
administered if they fail to cooperate with the dominant individual (Magee & Galinsky, 2008).
As such, dominance represents a direct route to power as it promotes social coordination
amongst subordinates who give them influence fearfully rather than freely (Cheng & Tracy,
2014).
1.3 Face-to-face groups and psychological needs
1.3.1 Self-determination theory
People’s interpersonal problems raise the question of what basic psychological needs are either
satisfied or frustrated over the course of their interpersonal interactions. One relevant framework
is self-determination theory (SDT), an organismic meta-theory that operates based on the
fundamental assumption that all human beings are inherently curious and motivated to pursue
7
personal growth (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 2008a; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan, Huta, &
Deci, 2008). SDT outlines three basic psychological needs that must be fulfilled for people to
achieve subjective well-being and to effectively regulate their behaviour (Deci & Ryan, 2000;
Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Autonomy refers to a person's need to exercise their
agency by making decisions and choices that are personally meaningful and fulfilling (Deci &
Ryan, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 2001; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Competence refers to a person's need to
develop and demonstrate skill and expertise in personally meaningful domains (Deci & Ryan,
2000; Deci & Ryan, 2001; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Relatedness refers to a person’s need for
attachment and closeness to others and is met through the cultivation of close relationships (Deci
& Ryan, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 2001; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Though conceptually different from
one another, these three needs are inter-related insofar as they all contribute to a person's global
sense of subjective well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 2001; Ryan et al., 2008) and
are significantly and routinely inter-correlated (e.g., Di Domenico, Fournier, Ayaz, & Ruocco,
2013; Weinstein & Ryan, 2010).
1.3.2 Social environment and need fulfillment
When psychological needs are not met, theorists will typically look to the environment to
understand why need fulfillment is being thwarted (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Psychological needs are more likely to be fulfilled in settings that support intrinsic motivation
(Ryan et al., 2008). Intrinsic motivation is generally high when a person has the freedom to
autonomously pursue a goal or activity due to genuine interest, curiosity, and a desire to gain
mastery in a personally meaningful domain (Deci, 1975; Ryan et al., 2008; White, 1959). As
such, intrinsic motivation necessarily promotes both autonomy and competence. In contrast,
extrinsic motivation is when a person tends to move toward an objective largely because they are
being incentivized, whether it be through the promise of a reward, the threat of possible
punishment, or interpersonal stress to complete a task (e.g., duress, demands) (Deci, Connell, &
Ryan, 1989; Deci & Ryan, 1985). Together, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation determine a
person's overall motivation (Atkinson, 1964; Porter & Lawler, 1968).
It is well recognized that some social environments vary in the extent to which they
scaffold and support the fulfillment of autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs (Ryan &
8
Deci, 2008; Reis et al., 2000). Extensive empirical research has investigated contextual factors
that promote need fulfillment across settings, with most of this research focusing on classrooms,
workplaces, and other organizational settings in which formal power structures already exist
(e.g., Deci et al., 1981; Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Lynch, Plant, & Ryan, 2005; Ryan & Deci,
2008). Indeed, these contexts typically have systemic structures that guarantee the emergence of
power differentials based on assigned social roles (e.g., students and teacher, employees and
manager) and it is these rigid social structures that make it important to understand how the
people with power can promote growth among their subordinates (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Deci et
al., 1989). For example, providing a rationale for the completion of a task can help an individual
internalize and integrate the goal such that they feel motivated to complete their duties (Deci,
Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994). Because they understand the purpose of the task, they are more
likely to complete it though the goal may not match their own inherent values or interests (Deci
et al., 1994). By supporting their autonomy, individuals are likely to feel more intrinsically
motivated to complete a task even when extrinsic motivation is quite high (Deci & Ryan, 2008).
Considerably less is known or understood about how people go about fulfilling their needs in
less structured social contexts in which social rank is allocated informally and/or implicitly.
1.4 Interpersonal perception and the social relations model
In less structured social contexts, the way a person is perceived and the way they perceive other
people has important implications for gaining status and/or power and consequent social rank
attainment. With higher social rank, a person typically has more opportunities to meet their needs
for autonomy, competence, and relatedness given the asymmetrical attention from their peers and
influence over group processes. Mechanisms of interpersonal perception represent an important
but underexplored mediator of the relationship between interpersonal problems and need-
fulfilling experiences in social interactions. Interpersonal perception broadly refers to processes
through which people perceive one another and Kenny's (1994) social relations model (SRM)
functions as both a theoretical and statistical framework through which these judgments can be
9
understood. According to SRM, interpersonal perception is comprised of multiple components1.
Target effects indicate how an individual tends to be perceived by others in a group or the
impression that many people tend to form of a single person or target (Kenny, 1994). An
example of a target effect within a social setting would be if the staff in an office maintained an
impression of their co-worker Tammy as intelligent and responsible (Kenny, 1994). All staff
members in the office converge on an impression of Tammy, though there may be some
variability from person to person. It is important to acknowledge that target effects do not reflect
an objective social reality (Kenny, 1994). Tammy may or may not actually be intelligent and
responsible. Rather, what this target effect indicates is that Tammy is perceived by others in her
work environment to be intelligent and responsible based on salient cues that she provides and
that are interpreted by perceivers (Albright, Kenny, & Malloy, 1988; Funder, 1995). Perceiver
effects are the impressions that an individual tends to form of others generally (Kenny, 1994).
They can also be conceptualized as how someone tends to describe the average person and can
be likened to a lens through which an individual sees the world (Srivastava, Guglielmo, & Beer,
2010; Wood, Harms, & Vazire, 2010). One example of a perceiver effect might be if Peter also
works in Tammy's office and sees not only her as intelligent but sees all people in the office this
way (Kenny, 1994). This tendency to maintain a consistent impression across targets might be
due to a myriad of perceptual processes including hypervigilance to certain cues in social
settings, comparison between the self and others, and behavioural complementarity, among other
possibilities (Kenny, 1994; Srivastava et al., 2010; Wood et al., 2010).
Interpersonal perceptions, specifically target and perceiver effects, may account for the
relationship between interpersonal problems and psychological need fulfillment within social
hierarchies. Hierarchies are interpersonally dynamic in nature, requiring people to assess who in
their group is attempting to gain rank (Hogan & Hogan, 1991). Moreover, how rank is assigned
depends on what skills and abilities are needed for the group to achieve its goals but also
depends on how any one member is perceived by the collective (i.e., cues of competence, cues of
dominance) (Hogg, 2001). The way that an individual tends to perceive their group members
1 Relationship effects represent the third component of interpersonal perception and are defined as the unique
perception that one person maintains of another. We could not estimate relationship effects in the current study as
multiple indicators are needed to differentiate relationship effects from error.
10
guides their behaviour in group settings, which likely has implications for the quality of
relationships maintained with their peers and the opportunities they are consequently given to
satisfy their needs (Mast, 2002; Wood et al., 2010). Altogether, it is likely that both target and
perceiver effects would have implications for fulfilling psychological needs in social hierarchies.
The Current Study 2
The current thesis examines whether the association between interpersonal problems and need
fulfillment is mediated by target effects (the way that others tend to perceive an individual)
and/or perceiver effects (the way that an individual tends to perceive others) across dimensions
relating to the pursuit and attainment of social rank. In the current study, target and perceiver
effects were calculated from a battery of behavioural indicators that were intended to reflect the
dominance and prestige strategies used to gain social rank and, as such, concern the interpersonal
perceptions that are relevant for hierarchical differentiation. Given the close relationship between
these dimensions of interpersonal problems and the five-factor model of personality, mediation
models were run with the "Big Five" first to observe differences and similarities between normal
and abnormal interpersonal functioning. The following hypotheses were examined.
2.1 Hypotheses
2.1.1 Five-factor model of personality hypotheses
2.1.1.1 Hypothesis 1: Extraversion will predict higher total post-task need
fulfillment
Extraverted people enjoy social interactions and report feeling invigorated and energized by
them (i.e., Costa & McCrae, 1992). It was hypothesized that people who self-reported high
extraversion would also report high total post-task need fulfillment, even when pre-task need
fulfillment was entered as a covariate, due to the social nature of the group task. Moreover,
people who self-report high levels of extraversion tend to be assertive and vocal in group settings
and enjoy higher status often because they are good at motivating others and display ample cues
of competence that signal their value to the group (Anderson et al., 2001). This ability to
11
motivate others while also demonstrating competence and asserting oneself were all expected to
result in higher overall need fulfillment, through higher autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
2.1.1.2 Hypothesis 2: Neuroticism will predict lower total post-task need
fulfillment
People who self-report high neuroticism tend to be anxious, irritable, self-conscious, and prone
to depression (John & Srivastava, 1999). These underlying traits have implications for one’s
ability to act autonomously, feel competent, and create meaningful connections with others.
Given their tendency to doubt themselves and their overall lower confidence, it was expected
that neuroticism would predict overall lower total post-task need fulfillment as these individuals
may have felt less capable of meaningfully contributing to the group task and connecting with
others.
2.1.1.3 Hypothesis 3: Competence target effects will mediate the relationship
between extraversion and total post-task need fulfillment
Given that extraverted people tend to provide perceptible cues of competence during social
interactions (e.g., Anderson et al., 2001), it was predicted that those high in extraversion would
be perceived by their group members as competent during the group task. It was expected that
this mechanism would explain the direct relationship between extraversion and post-task need
fulfillment because being regarded as competent by one’s peers increases the likelihood of
gaining status and consequently enjoying greater autonomy and influence over group processes
leading to higher overall need fulfillment.
2.1.1.4 Hypothesis 4: Competence target effects and competitiveness perceiver
effects will mediate the relationship between neuroticism and total post-
task need fulfillment
It was expected that people who self-report high neuroticism would be perceived as less
competent than their peers because of their tendency to be self-conscious and vulnerable in social
settings. It was expected that this self-perception might make them less likely to contribute
during the discussion thus providing fewer cues of their own competence and skill. It was
12
expected that their opportunity to influence group processes would be consequently restricted
and that they would report lower total post-task need fulfillment. Moreover, those who are high
in neuroticism tend to be sensitive to threats in their social environment and highly reactive to
and distressed by perceived stressors (Bolger, & Schilling, 1991; Tamir, Robinson, & Solberg,
2006). As such, it was expected that those high in neuroticism might also tend to perceive their
peers as competitive during the group task, also mediating the relationship between neuroticism
and total post-task need fulfillment.
2.1.2 Interpersonal problems hypotheses
2.1.2.1 Hypothesis 5: Dominance will predict lower total post-task need
fulfillment
It was predicted that people who report dominance related problems would also report less total
post-task need fulfillment given that they tend to use rapport-damaging tactics in social
interactions (e.g., bullying, intimidation) that increase the likelihood of social punishment from
group members and damage rapport.
2.1.2.2 Hypothesis 6: Elevated interpersonal distress will predict lower total
post-task need fulfillment
People who report high overall levels of interpersonal distress tend to experience problems
related to both dominance and nurturance. As such, these individuals experience the most
interpersonal problems and a diverse array of difficulties as well. Furthermore, the distress
caused by these interpersonal difficulties is likely to be exacerbated by the traits associated with
neuroticism, as neuroticism and total interpersonal problems are significantly inter-correlated
(Soldz et al., 1993; Tracey et al., 1996; Vittengl et al., 2003). It was hypothesized that those who
self-reported high interpersonal distress would experience frustrated need fulfillment across all
domains thus reporting lower total post-task need fulfillment.
13
2.1.2.3 Hypothesis 7: Competitiveness target effects will mediate the relationship
between dominance and total post-task need fulfillment
People who enact domineering strategies like coercion and intimidation are vulnerable to
resistance from others (Friske, 1993). It was expected that participants would perceive dominant
individuals as competitive and then minimize these individuals' opportunity for need fulfillment.
2.1.2.4 Hypothesis 8: Competence target effects and competitiveness perceiver
effects will mediate the relationship between interpersonal distress and
total post-task need fulfillment
It was expected that those who report interpersonal distress will tend to be perceived as less
competent by others due to a hesitancy to contribute to the group task, similar to the effect
expected with neuroticism. It is also expected that they will tend to perceive their peers as
competitive, either driven by a tendency to be overly attuned to social threats in the environment
or driven by domineering tendencies to gain power relative to other group members (Bolger, &
Schilling, 1991; Tamir et al., 2006).
Methods 3
3.1 Participants
A sample of 164 undergraduate students (male-identified participants: n = 84; female-identified
participants: n = 80) was recruited to participate in the current study. To be eligible, students
needed to be at least 18 years of age (M = 19.51, SD = 2.23, range = 17-32) and currently
registered as a student at the University of Toronto Scarborough (UTSC). The sample was
largely comprised of non-White, first-year undergraduate students (see Table 1 for
demographics). Course credit was offered as compensation.
3.2 Procedure
Students who met the abovementioned criteria were invited to participate in the study.
Participants were scheduled for testing in groups of four. Groups were either all-male- or all-
14
female-identified individuals. In total, 20 groups of female-identified participants and 21 groups
of male-identified participants completed the full experimental protocol. The purpose of this
study was to investigate interpersonal perception at the time of first impression. As such, groups
mostly or entirely comprised of individuals who knew each other very well (e.g., close friends
who had signed up for participation together) were not permitted to complete the group
discussion task. Compensation was still provided in these cases. Upon arrival, participants were
provided with a brief description of the study's purpose and procedure by a research assistant.
After providing informed consent, participants completed a pre-group interaction test battery
comprised of demographics and self-report measures, all of which were completed on password-
protected desktop computers in the lab using Survey Monkey, an online platform for survey
administration and data collection.
After completing the pre-group interaction test battery, participants then engaged in a 45-
minute group discussion during which they collaboratively completed the "Lost on the Moon"
task. The "Lost on the Moon" task was developed by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) and is commonly used in leaderless group discussions to facilitate social
interaction amongst group members and promote affiliation at zero acquaintance. During the
task, participants were provided with a scenario in which a space shuttle is said to have crash
landed 200 miles away from its targeted destination on the Moon due to mechanical difficulties
aboard the craft. Participants were asked to imagine themselves as a team of astronauts travelling
aboard this shuttle who only have a limited number of undamaged supplies (15 items) available.
Example items included, but were not limited to, a box of matches, a magnetic compass, and a
self-inflating life raft. Participants were asked to imagine how they would rank order each of the
15 items to reach their originally intended destination point. The group discussion that took place
during testing was unstructured and, as such, all participants presumably had equal opportunity
to contribute to the final group solution. Despite this equal opportunity, it was expected that
some individuals would naturally emerge as more vocal and influential during the task. While
NASA scientists have determined their own solution to the "Lost on the Moon" task, the primary
aim was not to see which groups could approximate NASA’s solution but, rather, to observe the
interaction itself and the processes through which participants form impressions of one another.
15
Participants then completed a post-group interaction test battery, which included a series
of self-report and round-robin rating measures. During the round-robin ratings, participants were
asked to rate themselves and their group members on behavioural items related to competence,
cooperativeness, and competitiveness. As part of this post-group interaction test battery,
participants were also asked to identify how well they knew each one of their group members
prior to the task on a scale of 1 to 5. If participants were previously acquainted with any others in
the group (e.g., provided a rating greater than 1), they were asked to disclose the nature of their
relationship. Given the small size of the UTSC campus, it was acknowledged that students may
be more likely to recognize one another compared to a larger university campus with a larger
student population. Having acquaintances in the same group was permissible so long as
participants were not friends who knew each other well enough to already have a fully formed
impression of one another. Participants were largely unacquainted: 72% of participants reported
not knowing their group members previously, and of those who did report prior
acquaintanceship, 7% reported knowing a group member extremely well. Examples of common
pre-existing relationships included recognizing a student from class, an extracurricular activity,
or from high school and/or having an established friendship.
3.3 Measures
3.3.1 Big Five Inventory (BFI; John & Srivastava, 1999)
The BFI is a 44-item self-report questionnaire that measures the five factors of personality:
extraversion (M = 3.24, SD = .75), conscientiousness (M = 3.35, SD = .65), agreeableness (M =
3.77, SD = .58), neuroticism (M = 3.05, SD = .76), and openness to experience (M = 3.47, SD =
.57). When completing the BFI, respondents must rate the extent to which they agree or disagree
with a series of statements that describe characteristics that some people, but not all people, may
have. Ratings are provided on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (“disagree strongly”) to 5 (“agree
strongly”) and factor scores are computed by taking the average of the items that load on to each
scale. The BFI is a widely used and cross-culturally validated measure of personality. In the
current study, the five scales of the BFI showed satisfactory reliability (range: α = .71-.85). All
means were within the expected range and were appropriately correlated with one another. The
BFI was administered as part of the pre-group interaction test battery.
16
3.3.2 Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-64; Horowitz, Alden, Wiggins, &
Pincus, 2000)
The IIP-64 is a 64-item self-report questionnaire intended to capture the interpersonal problems
that people commonly experience in their daily lives. Items ask respondents to rate how much
distress they experience due to a range of maladaptive social behaviours. The measure is divided
into two sections. The first section asks participants to rate how much distress they experience as
a result of behaviours they perform “too often” (32 items; e.g., "I fight with other people too
much", "I feel too responsible for solving other people's problems") while the second section
asks participants to rate behaviours they find challenging (32 items: e.g., "It is hard for me to
express my feelings to other people directly", "It is hard for me to be firm when I need to be").
Ratings are provided on a Likert scale ranging from 1 ("not at all") to 5 ("extremely"). Items are
organized into eight octants that, pictographically, divide the interpersonal circumplex into eight
sections radiating from the circumplex’s origin point to its circumference. These octants include
domineering (PA), vindictive (BC), cold (DE), socially inhibited (FG), nonassertive (HI), overly
accommodating (JK), self-sacrificing (LM), and intrusive (NO) behaviours.
Dominance and nurturance are scored from the eight IIP octant subscales, which
demonstrated adequate reliability in the present study (α = .70-.89). Low scores on dominance
indicate problems with submissiveness while high scores indicate domineering tendencies
(Alden et al., 1990; Wiggins, 1979). Low scores on nurturance indicate problems with
interpersonal distance while high scores indicate tendencies toward clinginess (Alden et al.,
1990; Wiggins, 1979). In the present study, dominance and nurturance were modestly and
negatively correlated, r = -.18, p <.05. Beyond dominance and nurturance, generalized distress
can also be scored by averaging all octant scale scores to capture a person’s level of overall
interpersonal distress (Tracey, Rounds, & Gurtman, 1996; Wright, Scott, Stepp, Hallquist, &
Pilkonis, 2015). The IIP is useful insofar as it provides both breadth and depth of assessment,
identifying the domains in which people report difficulties as well as their overall distress
(Horowitz et al., 1988). Scores for dominance (M = .20, SD = .59), nurturance (M = .002, SD =
.70), and generalized distress (M = 2.49, SD = .77) were included in the current analyses. The
IIP-64 was administered as part of the pre-group interaction test battery.
17
3.3.3 State Need Fulfillment Scale (SNFS)
The SNFS is a 9-item scale that was developed for the purposes of this study by adapting items
from a study conducted by La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, & Deci (2000). The SNFS measures
the extent to which a person feels that their needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are
being met. The SNFS consists of three subscales, one for each need, with three items loading on
each scale. A total need fulfillment score can also be computed by averaging the subscale scores.
The SNFS was administered as part of both the pre- and post-task test batteries to assess change
in need fulfillment over time. Participants were instructed to respond based on how they felt “in
this moment”, not based on how they generally feel in their day-to-day lives. Ratings are
provided on a scale of 1 ("not at all true") to 7 ("very much true"). In the current study, total state
need fulfillment demonstrated excellent reliability at both timepoints (pre-task: α = .82; post-
task: α = .84). However, some of the need fulfillment subscales demonstrated suboptimal
reliability pre-task (autonomy: α = .60; competence: α = .85; relatedness: α = .64) and post-task
(autonomy: α = .58; competence: α = .65; relatedness: α = .71).
3.3.4 Round-Robin Ratings
Round-robin ratings were collected following the group interaction task. Participants were asked
to rate themselves and others on items that reflected behavioural indicators of their competence
(i.e., “made valuable contributions to the group”, “demonstrated skill and expertise”, “motivated
the group”), cooperativeness (e.g., “was open to listening to other people’s ideas/suggestions”,
“encouraged others when they tried to make contributions during the task”), and competitiveness
(e.g., “tried to get their way too much”, “tried to control others in the group”). Ratings were
provided on a scale of 1 (“not at all”) to 5 (“extremely”). Target and perceiver effects were
computed using social relations modelling (SRM; Kenny, 1994; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006)
via the statistical package TripleR (Schönbrodt, Back, & Schmukle, 2012), which was run in R
version 3.5.3, for each of the round-robin items (Table 2). Group-centered scores were exported
from TripleR and can be interpreted as how a person sees others or is seen relative to the average
person in their group.
18
Results 4
Descriptive statistics for all measures and inter-correlations were computed and are available in
Tables 3 and 4 respectively. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was run with perceiver and
target effects to determine the number of factors across behavioural indicators of competence,
competitiveness, and cooperativeness as well as to investigate whether perceiver and target
effects demonstrate similar factor structures (e.g., comparable numbers of factors, comparable
item loadings on each factor). Mediation models were then run to determine whether perceiver
effects (i.e., how participants perceived their group members) and/or target effects (i.e., how
participants were perceived by their group members) mediated the relationships that personality
traits (the Big Five) and interpersonal problems (dominance, nurturance, distress) demonstrated
with changes in need fulfillment.
4.1 Exploratory factor analysis
To determine the respective factor structures for the perceiver and target effects, separate EFAs
were run. Parallel analyses were conducted and scree plots were generated to determine the
appropriate number of factors to extract (see Figures 1 and 2). For both the perceiver and target
effects, the inflection points of the parallel analyses recommended a two-factor solution. An
oblimin rotation was used given the modest correlation among items and with a specified cut-off
of .30 for item loadings. Two factors were then extracted (see Table 5). For both the perceiver
and target effects, items clustered in a conceptually coherent manner with competence items
loading on one factor and competitiveness items loading on the other. Fit indices were acceptable
for both perceiver effects (RMSR =.05, RMSEA =.124, Tucker Lewis Index =.86) and target
effects (RMSR = .04, RMSEA = .12, Tucker Lewis Index = .89) The sum of squared loadings
were 2.65 and 2.01 for the perceiver effects and were 2.96 and 2.71 for the target effects.
For both perceiver and target effect models, erratic loadings were observed across two of
the cooperation items. For both the perceiver and target effects, the first cooperation item (“was
open to listening to other people’s ideas and/or suggestions”) loaded positively on to the
competence factor but negatively on to the competitiveness factor. Moreover, the target effect
model indicated that the third cooperation item loaded onto both factors for target effects. To
19
maximize conceptual clarity and maintain parity across perceiver and target effects, cooperation
items one and three were dropped from both models. Factor 1 was named competence, as items
reflected group members' skills, expertise, and ability to successfully coordinate group effort.
Factor 2 was named competitiveness as these items reflected a tendency to try and gain control
over both resources and people in the group. These two factors demonstrated satisfactory
reliability across both perceiver effects (competence: α = .81, competitiveness: α = .81) and
target effects (competence: α = .84, competitiveness: α = .88) and were weakly to moderately
inter-correlated (see Table 6).
4.2 Regression analyses
To test the assumptions for the planned mediation analyses, a series of multiple regression
models were run (see Table 7). Pre-task need fulfillment was entered as a covariate in each of the
models as it was shown to significantly predict post-task need fulfillment, b = .47, 95% CI: [.31,
.63], SE = .08, p < .001. Perceiver and target effect subscales were entered as predictors of total
post-task need fulfillment in two separate multiple regression models. In the perceiver effect
model [R2 = .36, F(4, 93) = 8.26, p < .001], competitiveness perceiver effects (b = -.90, 95% CI:
[-.37,-1.42], SE = .26, p < .001) significantly predicted total post-task need fulfillment. In the
target effect model [R2 = .31, F(4, 93) = 12, p < .001], competence target effects (b = 1.17, 95%
CI: [.36, 1.98], SE = .41, p < .01) significantly predicted total post-task need fulfillment. In a
third multiple regression model, the Big Five domains of personality were entered as predictors
of total post-task need fulfillment, R2 = .31, F(6, 91) = 8.26, p < .001. Of these five domains,
only openness to experience was a significant predictor, b = .88, 95% CI: [.06, 1.70], SE = .41, p
< .05. In a fourth and final multiple regression model, interpersonal problems (dominance,
nurturance, and distress) were entered as predictors; R2 = .35, F(4, 93) = 14.13, p < .001; and
only dominance was shown to significantly predict total post-task need fulfilment, b = -1.34,
95% CI: [ -.60, -2.10], SE = .38, p < .001.
After having determined that openness and dominance both predict total post-task need
fulfillment and that competitiveness perceiver effects and competence target effects also predict
this outcome, additional regressions were run to determine what relationships emerged among
predictors (openness, dominance) and potential mediators (competitiveness perceiver effects,
20
competence target effects) before proceeding with mediation analyses. Openness to experience
did not predict competitiveness perceiver effects, b = .11, 95% C.I. [-.09, .32], SE =.10, p =.27,
but did predict competence target effects, b =.24, 95% C.I. [.09, .38], SE =.07, p <.01. In
comparison, dominance did not predict competence target effects, b = .01, 95% C.I. [-.14, .15],
SE = .07, p =.91, but did predict competitiveness perceiver effects, b = .46, 95% C.I. [.23, .69],
SE = .12, p <.001. As such, participants who reported more openness to experience tended to be
perceived as competent by their group members while individuals who reported dominance-
related interpersonal problems tended to perceive their group members as competitive. Mediation
models were then run to determine whether perceiver and target effects could explain the
association between interpersonal problems and total post-task need fulfillment. All predictors,
mediators, and outcome variables were scaled such that their mean became zero. In each model,
pre-task need fulfillment was entered as a covariate and 1,000 bootstraps were performed.
4.3 Mediation models with personality
Competence target effects did not mediate the relationship between openness to experience and
total post-task need fulfillment (see Figure 3 and Table 8). The unstandardized regression
coefficient between openness to experience and competence target effects was not significant, b
= .19, SE = .10, 95% C.I. [-.002, .42], p =.07, though the unstandardized regression coefficient
between competence target effects and post-task need fulfillment was significant, b = 1.07, SE =
.49, 95% C.I. [.09, 2.03], p <.05. The unstandardized indirect effect was not significant, b = .20,
SE = .16, 95% C.I. [.01, .74], p = .22. As such, competence perceiver effects did not explain why
participants who were high in openness to experience tended to feel more fulfilled after
interacting with their group members.
Given the pattern of significant correlations observed between openness to experience
and the need fulfillment subscales, both pre- and post-task (see Table 4), three additional
mediation models were run wherein post-task autonomy, competence, and relatedness were each
entered as outcomes. As in the previous models, pre-task need fulfillment subscales were entered
as covariates. None of these models was significant. Across all three models, the unstandardized
regression coefficients between openness to experience and competence target effects was not
significant, as was observed before (see Figures 4 – 6 and Table 8). Moreover, competence target
21
effects only predicted post-task relatedness, such that people who were perceived as competent
tended to report feeling closer to their peers, b = 2.05, SE = .65, 95% C.I. [.78, 3.13], p<.01.
Regardless, the indirect effect in this model was not significant, b =.25, SE = .24, 95% C.I. [-.09,
.91], p=.28 and so there was no evidence of a mediating effect.
4.4 Mediation models with interpersonal problems
Similarly, the relationship between dominance and total post-task need fulfillment was not
mediated by competitiveness perceiver effects, though the indirect effect approached
significance (see Figure 7 and Table 8). The unstandardized regression coefficient between
dominance and competitiveness perceiver effects was significant, b = .34, 95% C.I. [.06, .64], SE
= .15, p <.05, as well as the unstandardized regression coefficient between competitiveness
perceiver effects and post-task need fulfillment, b = -.83, 95% C.I. [-1.27, -.37], SE = .23, p
<.001. People who reported more dominance-related problems tended to perceive others as
competitive and those who tended to maintain this perceiver effect reported feeling less fulfilled
after the task. The unstandardized indirect effect, however, was not significant, b = -.28, 95%
C.I. [-.72, -.06, .63], SE = .16, p=.08.
Given the near significance of this model, we re-ran the model three times replacing total
post-task need fulfillment with the post-task need fulfillment subscales (autonomy, competence,
relatedness) and the pre-task need fulfillment subscales entered as covariates (see Figures 8-10
and Table 8). These analyses were run to determine which of the underlying subscales for need
fulfillment may have been driving an effect. Multiple regression models demonstrated that
dominance significantly predicted post-task autonomy (b = -1.80, 95% C.I. [-.90, -2.71], SE =
.46, p <.001), competence (b = -1.33, 95% C.I. [-.41, -2.25], SE = .46, p<.01), and relatedness (b
= -2.62, 95% C.I. [-.56, -2.62], SE = .52, p <.01) need fulfillment and so all assumptions were
met in order to proceed.
Competitiveness perceiver effects did mediate the relationship between dominance and
post-task autonomy. The unstandardized regression coefficient between dominance and
competitiveness perceiver effects was significant, b = .44, 95% C.I. [.12, .73], SE = .15, p <.01,
as well as the unstandardized regression coefficient between competitiveness perceiver effects
22
and post-task autonomy, b = -.96, 95% C.I. [-1.55, -.36], SE = .30, p <.01. The indirect effect
was significant, b = -.42, 95% C.I. [-.97, -.10], SE = .20, p <.05. Similarly, the relationship
between dominance and post-task relatedness was also mediated by competitiveness perceiver
effects. The unstandardized regression coefficient between dominance and competitiveness
perceiver effects was significant; b = .38, 95% C.I. [.04, .65], SE = .15, p <.05; and the
unstandardized regression coefficient between competitiveness perceiver effects and relatedness
was also significant, b = -1.39, 95% C.I. [-2.14, -.69], SE = .15, p <.001. The indirect effect was
significant, b = -.53, 95% C.I. [-1.12, -.14], SE = .24, p <.05. As such, participants who endorsed
more dominance-related interpersonal problems tended to perceive their group members as
competitive and, in turn, reported having their needs for autonomy and relatedness less satisfied.
The relationship between dominance and post-task competence was not mediated by competition
perceiver effects.
Discussion 5
The primary aim of the current study was to determine why people with interpersonal problems
tend to experience less need fulfillment during social interactions, exploring two components of
interpersonal perception as possible mediators: target and perceiver effects. Findings from the
current study demonstrate that people who endorsed dominance-related interpersonal problems
also reported lower post-task autonomy and relatedness need fulfillment in part because they
tended to perceive others as more competitive. This effect was observed even when total pre-task
need fulfillment was entered as a covariate in the models, offering a stringent test of the study's
hypotheses. As such, when a person experiences interpersonal difficulty because of domineering
behaviours, their need fulfillment is thwarted partially because of the way they see other people.
Contrary to prediction, neither extraversion, neuroticism, nor total interpersonal problems
predicted total post-task need fulfillment. From the five-factor model, only openness to
experience predicted post-task need fulfillment above and beyond total pre-task levels. However,
this relationship was not mediated by either target or perceiver effects. Nevertheless, the current
study provides important information about the mechanisms that lead those with dominance-
related problems to feel less autonomous and less connected to others during group interactions.
In the current study, perceiving others as competitive may have motivated people with
dominance-problems to behave in dominant ways during the group task. One possibility is that
23
dominant individuals felt threatened by others at first impression and retaliated against this
perceived competition with bullying tactics, like intimidation. Dominant individuals may
consider this behaviour to be an effective way of asserting themselves within group interactions,
with the aim of seizing power early on. Perceiving others as competitive and responding with
dominance in the current study may be comparable to interpersonal perception processes that
operate in narcissism, especially considering the well-documented relationship between
narcissism and dominance-related problems in the literature (Bradlee & Emmons, 1992; Patrick,
Curtin, & Tellegen, 2002). Edershile and Wright (2019) found that people who endorsed traits of
vulnerable narcissism (e.g., negative affectivity) tended to behave in socially cold ways when
they perceived others as dominant and cold. In contrast, people who endorsed traits of grandiose
narcissism (e.g., self-confidence, arrogance) tended to behave in warm and dominant ways when
they perceived others as warm and submissive. These behavioural patterns observed among
those who endorse trait narcissism are consistent with interpersonal theories of complementarity.
Complementary refers to behavioural patterns observed in social interactions whereby certain
behaviours elicit a predictable and complementary response from one’s interaction partners
(Leary, 1957). Dominant behaviours tend to elicit submissive behaviours from others while
nurturance behaviours tend to be reciprocated with nurturance behaviours (Kiesler, 1983).
Dominant behaviour reliably pulls for an opposite reaction that establishes a power structure
amongst participants in an interaction. Dominant people may consequently pursue this approach
assuming it will create a power dynamic in their favour given the success they have experienced
in the past.
In the current study, dominant people likely used domineering strategies because they
perceived others as competitive. However, as has been shown in the social power literature,
people who use these strategies tend to be met with resistance, even when others behave
submissively in response (Friske, 1993). Dominant individuals also tend to engage in status self-
enhancement and are less accurate about their true status in a group (e.g., Anderson & Berdahl,
2002; Bugental & Lewis, 1999; Galinsky, Gruenfeld & Magee, 2003). This perceptual blind spot
often results in inappropriate actions given their actual social ranking within the hierarchy
(Anderson & Berdahl, 2009). Such actions include interrupting others, speaking more frequently
than warranted, and being overly directive or "bossy" with their peers (Anderson & Berdahl,
2002; Bugental & Lewis, 1999; Galinksy et al., 2003). Anderson et al. (2006) demonstrated that
24
people who overestimated their status during a group task were less socially accepted by their
group members. They were also at increased risk of experiencing social punishment exercised by
the group (Anderson et al., 2006). Although the current study did not look at self-perceptions or
self-knowledge, it stands to reason that individuals who try to seize power within a group early
on, especially in a short interaction, are likely to strain their relationships with peers resulting in
restricted opportunities to contribute and influence decision-making.
People who report high dominance might also assume that most people see the world
through the same lens as they do. By this logic, if dominant people tend to perceive others as
competitive, they may assume that their peers share the same perception as well as the goal of
assuming power within the group. Dominant individuals may consequently behave in overly
dominant ways to get ahead relative to their perceived competitors. This projected motivation
essentially reflects poor mentalization skills, defined as the ability to understand the internal
states of others (e.g., thoughts, feelings, motivations; Fonagy, Gergeley, Jurist, & Target, 2002).
Dominant individuals may overlook the variety of strategies that people use to earn rank relative
to their peers in group settings or fail to recognize the possibility that some individuals are less
motivated than others to attain a high social rank within a group context. Though the drive for
rank has been regarded as a universal human motive (Anderson, Hildreth, & Howland, 2015), the
rewards of attaining rank versus the effort required to do so are likely different for different
people resulting in variable actions taken toward this objective.
The current study found no mediating effect for competence target effects on the
relationship between openness to experience and total post-task need fulfillment. Openness to
experience did predict higher post-task need fulfillment in the current study, likely because the
"Lost on the Moon Task" requires analytic thinking and creative problem-solving skills, both of
which are generally endorsed by those high in this trait. Indeed, the facets underlying openness
to experience include openness to fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, and values (Costa
& McCrae, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae & Sutin, 2009). As such, people who are high
in openness tend to be intellectual, curious, and are drawn to exploring ideas. The “Lost on the
Moon” task would have provided the opportunity to demonstrate one’s strengths in these
domains. Openness to experience was associated with competence target effects suggesting their
peers perceived them as capable of making valuable contributions to the discussion. However,
25
the mediating effect of competence target effects was not significant. People who are open to
experience may have reported higher post-task need fulfillment regardless of how they perceived
others or how others perceived them because they inherently enjoyed the task. Alternatively,
rank may only have been awarded to those individuals who demonstrated competence (e.g.,
openness to experience) in combination with strong leadership skills, like those shown by
extraverted individuals. Thus, interactions among traits may be important to explore in future
research.
Contrary to hypotheses, extraversion did not predict total post-task need fulfillment in the
current study. Extraverted people tend to be influential members of the groups to which they
belong and gain higher status relative to others (Anderson et al., 2001; Anderson et al., 2009b).
Dominant people (e.g., self-assured, confident) also tend to gain influence because they are
perceived as more competent than they really are (Anderson et al., 2009a). Anderson et al.
(2009a) found that dominant people provided frequent behavioural indicators of competence
(e.g., answering questions first, answering multiple questions) during a group task in which
participants needed to solve a series of math problems. These behaviours, as rated by
independent coders, predicted dominant individuals’ perceived competence. It was this perceived
competence that mediated the relationship between dominance and influence, even when co-
varying for actual quantitative skill and competence, which was indexed by SAT scores. As
such, confidence can help someone get ahead and contribute to others’ perceptions of
competence beyond actual skill, talent, and expertise. In the current study, people who self-
reported extraversion may have been perceived as more competent than they really are, leading
to rank attainment but not necessarily making them feel genuinely fulfilled by the interaction.
Surprisingly, neither neuroticism nor interpersonal distress predicted lower total post-task need
fulfillment and so mediation models for these predictors were not tested in the current study. It is
possible that the situation was not personally significant enough to warrant hypervigilance to
environmental threats or too short to allow for emotional dysregulation to occur thus buffering
against the emergence of competence target effects or competitiveness perceiver effects. Future
research should continue to consider the relationships among these dimensions, interpersonal
perceptions, and need fulfillment both over time and across contexts.
26
5.1 Limitations and Future Directions
In sum, this study has identified one mechanism that partly explains the relationship between
dominance and dimensions of need fulfillment in group settings; however, several limitations
should be noted. Although this study involved measurements at two different timepoints (pre-
task and post-task), all data were collected on the same day. Controlling for pre-task need
fulfillment in the multiple regression and mediation models had the benefit of providing a
stringent test of the study hypotheses; however, effects may have been more difficult to detect
due to the short interaction between measurements. A lengthier longitudinal design would allow
for the assessment of change in need fulfillment over time as group members become better
acquainted with one another. The group task may have also been insufficient to engage and
motivate participants, even though the group that proposed a solution closest to NASA's correct
one was offered additional monetary reward. It could be that the task lacked sufficient personal
significance and so intrinsic motivation to contribute and gain rank attainment was low even
though extrinsic motivation was relatively high. Future research may consider conducting a
round robin study outside of a laboratory setting (e.g., classrooms, workplaces) where
participants may be more motivated to attain rank, form alliances with peers, and achieve group
objectives.
Although the round-robin ratings in the current study asked about the different
perceptions that individuals formed during the interaction, the current study did not investigate
the type(s) of information participants used to form these impressions. When people are
unacquainted with one another, they typically form impressions based on verbal and non-verbal
cues that are immediately and directly observable (Albright et al., 1988; Funder, 1995; Mast,
2002). These include social behaviours (e.g., talkativeness, eye contact), physical appearance
(e.g., attractiveness), and sociodemographic variables like gender and race. Though there are
general cues that people attend to when making a first impression, some cues are especially
salient within hierarchies, used to gauge dominance and submissiveness, and determine who
should achieve high ranking within the social structure (e.g., time spent talking, vocal pitch;
Mast, 2002). The cues that people use to determine whether someone is perceived as competent
or competitive in a group setting are less clear and have implications for the emergence of target
and perceiver effects. Previous studies have identified cues of perceived competence, including
27
offering solutions to group problems and providing explanations to others (i.e., Anderson et al.,
2009) however, future research might try to determine the cues that differentiate true competence
from perceived competence. How cues of competence and competitiveness change across
contexts might also be investigated (e.g., types of tasks, extrinsically and intrinsically motivated
tasks, etc.). Finally, people with dominance and nurturance problems may be hypervigilant to
particular cues during interactions given their difficulties with others resulting in perceptual
biases. Eye tracking studies that could determine what people with different problems are
attending to during interactions may help elucidate how certain problems influence perceptual
processes.
5.2 Summary
It is well established that people with interpersonal problems experience difficulties in social
settings however, there is little research to explain why these experiences are not wholly
fulfilling. The current study sought to determine whether interpersonal perceptions mediated the
relationships observed between interpersonal problems (dominance, nurturance, distress) and
need fulfillment as well as personality and need fulfillment. The current study demonstrated that
people with dominance-related problems tend to perceive others as competitive, resulting in
them feeling less autonomous and less connected to others during social interactions. More
broadly, this study suggests that interpersonal perception has consequences for need fulfillment
overall and is important to consider when determining why needs are being thwarted in social
settings.
28
References
Albright, L., Kenny, D. A., & Malloy, T. E. (1988). Consensus in personality judgments at zero
acquaintance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 55(3), 387-395.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.55.3.387.
Alden, L.E., Wiggins, J.S., & Pincus, A.L. (1990). Construction of circumplex scales for the
Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55(3&4), 521-
536. doi: 1.1207/s15327752jpa5503&410.
Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J.L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power
on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83,
1362-1377. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1362.
Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental
human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 574-
601. doi: 10.1037/a0038781.
Anderson, C., John, O.P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A.M. (2001). Who attains social status? Effects
of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81(1), 116-132. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.81.1.116.
Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G.J. (2009a). The pursuit of status in social groups. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 18(5), 295-298. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01655.x.
Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G.J. (2009b). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-
to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 491-503. doi: 10.1037/a0014201
Anderson, C., Srivastava, S., Beer, J.S., Spataro, S.E., & Chatman, J.A. (2006). Knowing your
place: Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91(6), 1094-1110, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1094
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Oxford, England: Van Nostrand.
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis
of performance and well‐being in two work settings. Journal of applied social
psychology, 34(10), 2045-2068. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02690.x.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man.
Chicago, Il: Rand McNally.
29
Báles, R.F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Oxford,
England: Addison-Wesley.
Berger, J., Cohen, B., & Zelditch, M. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction.
American Sociological Review, 37, 241-255. doi: 10.2307/2093465.
Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S.J., & Zelditch, M. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review
of Sociology, 6, 479-508. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.06.080180.002403.
Blau, P.M. (1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34(2), doi: 10.1111/j.1475-
682X.1964.tb00583.x.
Blau, P.M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New
York, NY: Free Press.
Bradlee, P. M., & Emmons, R.A. (1992). Locating narcissism within the interpersonal
circumplex and the five-factor model. Personality and Individual differences, 13(7), 821-
830. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(92)90056-U.
Bugental, D. B., & Lewis, J. C. (1999). The paradoxical misuse of power by those who see
themselves as powerless: How does it happen?. Journal of Social Issues, 55(1), 51-64.
doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00104.
Buss, D.M., & Craik, K.H. (1980). The frequency concept of disposition: Dominance and
prototypically dominant acts. Journal of Personality, 48(3), 379-392.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1980.tb00840.x.
Cartwright, D. (1959). Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan.
Chance, M.R.A. (1967). Attention structure as the basis of primate rank orders. Royal
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 2(4), 503-518,
doi: 10.2307/2799336
Cheng, J.T., & Tracy, J.L. (2014). Toward a unified science of hierarchy: Dominance and
prestige are two fundamental pathways to human social rank. In J.T. Cheng, J.L. Tracy,
& C. Anderson (Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 3-27). New York, NY:
Springer Science + Business Media. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0867-7_1.
Cheng, J.T., Tracy, J.L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the
top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank
and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 103-125.
doi: 10.1037/a0030398
30
Cheng, J.T., Tracy, J.L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary
foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 31, 334-347.
doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.004
Collins, R. (1990). Stratification, emotional energy, and the transient emotions. In T.D. Kemper
(Ed.), Research agendas in the sociology of emotions (pp. 27-57). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The
NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological assessment, 4(1), 5-13. doi:10.1037/1040-
3590.4.1.5
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (2011). The five-factor model, five-factor theory, and interpersonal
psychology. In L.M. Horowitz & S. Strack (Ed.). Handbook of interpersonal psychology:
Theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic interventions. (pp. 91-104). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley & Sons.
Deci, E.L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization.
Journal of applied psychology, 74(4), 580-590. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.580.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The
self-determination theory perspective. Journal of personality, 62(1), 119-142.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00797.x.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination
in personality. Journal of research in personality, 19(2), 109-134. doi: 10.1016/0092-
6566(85)90023-6.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2008a). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being
across life's domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14-23. doi: 10.1037/0708-
5591.49.1.14.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2008b). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human
motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182-185,
doi: 10.1037/a0012801.
31
Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults'
orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic
motivation and perceived competence. Journal of educational Psychology, 73(5), 642-
650. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.73.5.642.
Dépret, E., & Fiske, S.T. (1993). Social cognition and power: Some cognitive consequences of
social structure as a source of control deprivation. In G. Weary, F. Gleicher, K.L. Marsh
(Eds.), Control Motivation and Social Cognition, (pp. 176-202). New York, NY:
Springer.
Di Domenico, S. I., Fournier, M. A., Ayaz, H., & Ruocco, A. C. (2013). In search of integrative
processes: Basic psychological need satisfaction predicts medial prefrontal activation
during decisional conflict. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 967-
978. doi:10.1037/a0030257
Drapeau, M., Perry, J.C., & Körner, A. (2012). Interpersonal patterns in borderline personality
disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 26(4), 583-592.
doi: 10.1521/pedi.2012.26.4.583.
Edershile, E.A., & Wright, A.G.C. (2019). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissistic states in
interpersonal situations. Self and Identity, 1-17. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2019.1627241.
Eng, W. & Heimberg, R.G. (2006). Interpersonal correlates of generalized anxiety disorder: Self
versus other perception. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 380-387.
doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2005.02.005.
Fiske, S.T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American
Psychologist, 48(6), 621-628. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.48.6.621
Fonagy, P., Gergeley G., Jurist E., & Target, M. (2002). Affect regulation, mentalization, and
the development of the self. New York, NY: Other Press.
Fournier, M.A., Moskowitz, D.S., & Zuroff, D.C. (2011). Origins and applications of the
interpersonal circumplex. In L.M. Horowitz & S. Strack (Ed.). Handbook of
interpersonal psychology: Theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic interventions.
(pp. 57-73). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Freedman, M.B., Ossorio, A.G., & Coffey, H.S. (1951). The interpersonal dimension of
personality. Journal of Personality, 20(2), 143-161. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
6494.1951.tb01518.x.
32
Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach.
Psychological review, 102(4), 652-670. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.4.652.
Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 85(3), 453-466. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.453.
Girard, J.M., Wright, A.G.C., Beeney, J.E., Lazarus, S.A., Scott, L.N., Stepp, S.D., & Pilkonis,
P.A. (2017). Interpersonal problems across levels of the psychopathology hierarchy.
Comprehensive Psychiatry, 79, 53-69. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2017.06.014.
Gurtman, M.B. (1992). Trust, distrust, and interpersonal problems: A circumplex analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(6), 989-1002.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.62.6.989
Gurtman, M.B. (1995). Personality structure and interpersonal problems: A theoretically-guided
item analysis of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Assessment, 2(4), 343-361.
doi: 10.1177/1073191195002004005
Gurtman, M.B. (1996). Interpersonal problems and the psychotherapy context: The construct
validity of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Psychological Assessment, 8, 241-
255. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.8.3.241
Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F.J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a
mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human
Behaviour, 22, 165-196. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1991). Personality and status. In D.G. Gilbert & J.J. Connolly (Eds.),
Personality, social skills, and psychopathology: An individual differences approach (pp.
137-154). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Hogg, M.A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 5(3), 184-200. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_1.
Hopwood, C.J. (2018). Interpersonal dynamics in personality and personality disorders.
European Journal of Personality, 32(5), 499-524. doi: 10.1002/per.2155
Horowitz, L.M. (2004). Interpersonal foundations of psychopathology. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Horowitz, L.M., Alden, L.E., Wiggins, J.S., & Pincus, A.L. (2000). IIP-64/IIP-32 professional
manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Horowitz, L.M., Rosenberg, S.E., Baer, B.A., Ureno, G., & Villasenor, V.S. (1988). Inventory of
33
Interpersonal Problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology,56(6), 853-892. doi: 0022-006X.
Horowitz, L.M., & Strack, S. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of interpersonal psychology: Theory,
research, assessment and therapeutic interventions. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
John, O.P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. In L.A. Pervin & O.P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:
Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp 102-138). New York: Guilford Press.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D.H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.
Psychological Review, 110(2), 265-284. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
Kenny, D.A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY:
Guilford press.
Kiesler, D.J. (1983). The 1982 Interpersonal Circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human
transactions. Psychological Review, 90, 185-214. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.90.3.185.
LaForge, R. (1977). Interpersonal Check List (ICL). In J. E. Jones & J. W. Pfeiffer (Eds.), The
1977 annual handbook for group facilitators (pp. 8996). LaJolla, CA: University
Associates
LaForge, R., Leary, T.F., Naboisek, H., Coffey, H.S., & Freedman, M.B. (1954). The
interpersonal dimension of personality: II. An objective study of repression. Journal of
Personality, 23, 129-153. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1954.tb01144.x.
LaForge, R., & Suczek, R.F. (1955). The interpersonal dimension of personality: III. An
interpersonal checklist. Journal of Personality, 24, 94-112. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
6494.1955.tb01177.x.
La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation
in security of attachment: a self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need
fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of personality and social psychology, 79(3), 367-
384. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.367.
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: A functional theory and methodology
for personality evaluation. Oxford, England: Ronald Press.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. In D. Cartwright
(Eds.), Oxford, England: Harpers.
34
Locke, K.D. & Sadler, P. (2007). Self-efficacy, values, and complementarity in dyadic
interactions: Integrating interpersonal and social-cognitive theory. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 33(1), 94-109. doi: 10.1177/0146167206293375.
Lord, R.G., De Vader, C.L., & Alliger, G.M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between
personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization
procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402-410. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.71.3.402.
Lynch Jr, M. F., Plant, R. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2005). Psychological needs and threat to safety:
Implications for staff and patients in a psychiatric hospital for youth. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(4), 415. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.36.4.415.
Magee, J.C., & Galinsky, A.D. (2008). The self-reinforcing nature of social hierarchy: Origins
and consequences of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351-
398. doi:10.1080/19416520802211628.
Mast, M. (2002). Dominance as expressed and inferred through speaking time: A meta-analysis.
Human Communication Research, 28(3), 420-450. doi: 10.1093/hcr/28.3.420.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience.
In J.J. Johnson, R. Hogan, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp.
825-847). San Diego, California: Academic Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Sutin, A. R. (2009). Openness to experience. In M.R. Leary & R.H. Hoyle
(Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 257-273). New York,
NY: The Guilford Press.
McEvoy, P.M., Burgess, M.M., & Nathan, P. (2013). The relationship between interpersonal
problems, negative cognitions, and outcomes from cognitive behavioural group therapy
for depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 150(2), 266-275.
doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2013.04.005
McEvoy, P.M., Burgess, M.M., & Nathan, P. (2014). The relationship between interpersonal
problems, therapeutic alliance, and outcomes following group and individual cognitive
behaviour therapy. Journal of Affective Disorders, 157, 25-32.
doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2013.12.038
McEvoy, P.M., Burgess, M.M., Page, A.C., Nathan, P., & Fursland, A. (2013). Interpersonal
problems across anxiety, depression, and eating disorders: A transdiagnostic examination.
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 52(2), 129-147. doi:10.1111/bjc.12005
35
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.
Owens, D.A., & Sutton, R.I. (2001). Status contests in meetings: Negotiating the informal order.
In M.E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 299-316). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Patrick, C. J., Curtin, J. J., & Tellegen, A. (2002). Development and validation of a brief form of
the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Psychological assessment, 14(2), 150-
163. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.14.2.150.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). What job attitudes tell about motivation. Harvard business
review, 46(1), 118-126.
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence
perspective. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Puschner, B., Bauer, S., Horowitz, L.M., & Kordy, H. (2005). The relationship between
interpersonal problems and the helping alliance. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(4),
415-429. doi:10.1002/jclp.20050.
Redhead, D., Cheng, J.T., Driver, C., Foulsham, T., & O’Gorman, R. (2019). On the dynamics of
social hierarchy: A longitudinal investigation of the rise and fall of prestige, dominance,
and social rank in naturalistic task groups. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 40, 222-234.
doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.12.001.
Reis, H.T., Sheldon, K.M., Gable, S.L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). Daily well-being: The
role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 26(4), 419-435. doi: 10.1177/0146167200266002.
Ridgeway, C.L., & Erickson, K.G. (2000). Creating and spreading status beliefs. American
Journal of Sociology, 106(3), 579-615. doi: 10.1086/318966
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
doi: 10.1037110003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). From ego depletion to vitality: Theory and findings
concerning the facilitation of energy available to the self. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 2(2), 702-717. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00098.x.
Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory
perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of happiness studies, 9(1), 139-170.
doi: 10.1007/s10902-006-9023-4.
36
Savin-Williams, R.C. (1979). Dominance hierarchies in groups of early adolescents. Child
Development, 50(4), 923-935. doi: 10.2307/1129316
Tracey, T.J.G., Rounds, J., & Gurtman, M. (1996). Examination of the general factor with the
interpersonal circumplex structure: Application to the Inventory of Interpersonal
Problems. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 31(4), 441-466.
doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3104_3.
Saffrey, C., Bartholemew, K., Scharfe, E., Henderson, A.J.Z., & Koopman, R. (2003). Self- and
partner-perceptions of interpersonal problems and relationship functioning. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 20(1), 117-139. doi: 10.1177/02654075030201006.
Schönbrodt, F. D., Back, M. D., & Schmukle, S. C. (2012). TripleR: An R package for social
relations analyses based on round-robin designs. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 455–
470. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0150-4.
Soldz, S., Budman, S., Demby, A., & Merry, J. (1993). Representation of personality disorders in
circumplex and five-factor space: Explorations with a clinical sample. Psychological
Assessment, 5(1), 41-52. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.5.1.41.
Srivastava, S., Guglielmo, S., & Beer, J.S. (2010). Perceiving others’ personalities: Examining
the dimensionality, assumed similarity to the self, and stability of perceiver effects.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 520-534. doi: 10.1037/a0017057.
Stangier, U., Esser, F., Leber, S., Risch, A.K., & Heidenreich, T. (2006). Interpersonal problems
in social phobia versus unipolar depression. Depression and Anxiety, 23(7), 418-421.
doi: 10.1002/da.20190.
Sullivan, H.S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York, NY: W.W. Norton &
Co.
Thibaut, J.W., & Kelley, H.H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. Oxford, England: John
Wiley.
Vittengl, J.R., Clark, L.A., & Jarrett, R.B. (2003). Interpersonal problems, personality pathology,
and social adjustment after cognitive therapy for depression. Psychological Assessment,
15, 29-40. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.15.1.29.
Weinstein, N. & Ryan, R.M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial
behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 222-244.doi:10.1037/a0016984
37
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological
review, 66(5), 297-333.doi: 10.1037/h0040934.
Wiggins, J.S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal
domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395-412. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.37.3.395.
Wiggins, J.S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding
and measurement of interpersonal behaviour. In W.M. Grove & D. Cicchetti (Eds.),
Thinking clearly about psychology, volume 2: Personality and psychopathology. (pp. 89-
113). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Wiggins, J.S. (2003). Paradigms of personality assessment: An interpersonal odyssey. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 80(1), 11-18. doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_08.
Wilson, S., Revelle, W., Stroud, C.B., & Durbin, C.E. (2012). A confirmatory bifactor analysis
of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems – Circumplex and associations of
interpersonal traits across multiple relationship contexts and measures. Psychological
Assessment, 25(2), 353-365. doi: 10.1037/a0030989.
Wood, D., Harms, P., & Vazire, S. (2010). Perceiver effects as projective tests: What your
perceptions of others say about you. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1),
174-190. doi: 10.1037/a0019390.
Wright, A.G.C., Scott, L.N., Stepp, S.D., Hallquist, M.N., & Pilkonis, P.A. (2015). Personality
pathology and interpersonal problem stability. Journal of Personality Disorders, 29(5),
684-706. doi: 10.1521/pedi_2014_28_171.
38
Tables
Table 1.
n %
Gender
Male 80 47.61%
Female 88 52.40%
Year of Study
First 102 60.71%
Second 26 15.48%
Third 11 6.55%
Fourth 24 14.29%
Fifth 5 2.98%
Ethnicity
South Asian 63 -
Chinese 45 -
White 19 -
Filipino 9 -
Black 8 -
Southeast Asian 7 -
West Asian 5 -
Korean 5 -
Arab 4 -
Southeast Asian 3 -
Latin American 1 -
Japanese 1 -
Other 12 -
English as a First Language
Yes 79 47.02%
No 89 52.98%
Annual Household Income
<$15,000 18 10.70%
$15,001 - $25,000 18 10.70%
$25,001 - $35,000 24 14.29%
$35,001 - $50,000 38 22.61%
$50,001 - $75,000 27 16.07%
$75,001 - $100,000 28 16.67%
>$100,000 15 8.92%
Demographic Characteristics of the Study Sample
Note. N = 168; Percentage of the sample that
identifies with each ethnicity was not calculated as
participants were permitted to report multiple
ethinicities when appropriate.
39
40
41
Table 4.
Correlations between Pre-task and Post-Task State Need Fulfillment and Five-Factor Personality, Interpersonal Problems, Perceiver and Target Effects
Total Autonomy Competence Relatedness Total Autonomy Competence Relatedness
BFI
Extraversion .42*** .42*** .38*** .42*** .29** .26* .19 .25*
Agreeableness .35*** .20* .11 .35*** .27* .32** .14 .30**
Conscientiousness .34*** .39*** .46*** .34*** .41*** .30** .36*** .49***
Neuroticism -.33*** -.40*** -.44*** -.33*** -.41*** -.41*** -.42*** -.20
Openness .09** .23** .30*** .09 .30** .29** .23* .25*
IIP-64
Dominance .11 .06 .16* .03 -.19 -.23 -.08 -.20
Nurturance .16* .09 .09 .20* .11 .07 .04 .14
Distress -.32*** -.25** -.30*** -.23** -.32** -.31** -.27* -.27*
Perceiver Effects
Competence .24** .27*** .04 .26*** .30** .28** .06 .45***
Competitiveness -.13 -.17* -.01 -.15 -.40*** -.43*** -.07 -.43***
Target Effects
Competence .26** .23** .14 .25 .36*** .27** .22* .41***
Competitiveness .01 -.07 .12 -.04 -.10 -.16 .03 -.27
Pre-Task SNFS Post-Task SNFS
Note. BFI = Big Five Inventory, IIP-64 = Inventory of Interpersonal Problems, * indicates p < .05; ** indicates p < .01, *** indicates p < .001.
42
Table 5.
Factor Loadings from Exploratory Factor Analyses Conducted with Perceiver and Target Effects
Item Stems 1 2 1 2
"How valuable were the contributions of each member of your group
(i.e., their input helped the group's overall performance)?"
.83 .88
"How skilled (e.g., [creative], [analytical] was each member of your group?" .81 .83
"How much leadership ability did each member of your group show?" .75 .80
"Was open to listening to other people's ideas and/or suggestions" .50 -.36 -.71 .32
"Encouraged others when they tried to make contributions during the task" .46 .52
"Was cooperative" .51 -.57 .42
"Tried to get their way too much" .77 .88
"Was competitive with other people in the group" .68 .75
"Tried to control others in the group" .82 .81
M(SD) 3.69(.55) 2.28(.74) 2.28(.92) 3.69(.57)
SS loadings 2.65 2.01 2.96 2.71
Proportion of Variance .29 .22 .33 .30
Cumulative Variance .29 .52 .33 .63
Perceiver Effects Target Effects
43
Table 6.
Competence Competitiveness Competence Competitiveness
Perceiver Effects
Comptence - -.32*** .49*** -.22**
Competitiveness -.32*** - .36** .49***
Target Effects
Comptence .49*** -.22** - .11
Competitiveness .36** .49*** .11 -
Perceiver Effects Target Effects
Note. * indicates p <.05, ** indicates p < .01, *** indicates p <.001.
Correlations Among Perceiver and Target Effect Competence and Competitiveness Subscales
44
Table 7.
Predictor variables B SE B B SE B B SE B B SE B B SE B
Pre-Task Total SNFS .47*** .08 .42*** .08 .41*** .08 .25* .11 .49*** 1.65
Competitiveness Perceiver Effects -.90*** .26 - - - - - -
Competence Perceiver Effects .54 .40 - - - - - -
Competitiveness Target Effects -.33 .31 - - - -
Competence Target Effects 1.17** .41 - - - -
Neuroticism -.56 .33 - -
Extraversion .08 .35 - -
Agreeableness .23 .43 - -
Conscientiousness .69 .43 - -
Openness to Experience .88* .41 - -
Dominance -1.34*** .38
Nurturance -.07 .36
Distress -.58 .32
R2
.25 .36 .31 .31 .35
f2
.33 .56 .45 .45 .54
Note. B = unstandardized regression coefficient, SE B = standard error, f2 = Cohen's f, SNFS = state need fulfillment scale, * indicates p < .05; ** indicates p <
.01, *** indicates p < .001.
Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Post-Task Need Fulfillment from Perceiver Effects, Target Effects, the Five-Factor Model of Personality,
and Interpersonal Problems
Model 1 Model 2 Model 4Model 3 Model 5
45
46
Figures
Figure 1. Scree plot generated from parallel analysis conducted with target effect items
Figure 2. Scree plot generated from parallel analysis conducted with perceiver effect items
47
48
49
50
