Background

In two previous pilots, Daniel found that CWV predicts dominance strategies. This relationship is explained mostly by beliefs about the relational effects of dominance, rather the effects of dominance on influence. In other words, CWV might be willing to engage in dominance strategies because they either think dominance strategies don’t incur as high of a relational cost OR they acknowledge the relational cost but are willing to accept it.

See link for more notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kWYcy8DcdqrO9WoGfoRyWjSzhlWVlj9D1Etd1z6MqxM/edit?usp=sharing

In this iteration, we look at some other worldviews, add some face-valid questions about concerns people may have about influence and relationship, and ask people to react to a couple of scenarios in which there was dominant behavior at the workplace.

Some mis-haps in data collection

There were a couple of errors in data collection.
1. It turns out that some participants (probably depending on browser) couldn’t scroll right in the relationship expectancies block. We know this because there was an attention check that asked them select “Strong positive effect,” and because they couldn’t do that, they reached out to me via Connect. It’s not everyone, and it’s pretty easy to find. For participants who failed that attention check, we cannot use their relationship expectancies score.
2. In the expectancy scales, there is one item that isn’t clear, so I have mean scores without it as well. The item reads “Having members of the group know it is better to let them have their way.” It’s just not clear who “them” and “their” are referring to. I think we need to reword that item in the next round of data colletion.

Attention checks

There were SIX attention checks (I might have overdid that). Five of them just ask people to select a point on the scale and the sixth is more like a comprehension check following the scenario description. check_3 is the attention check in the problematic block. check_6 was the comprehension check.

check failed passed
check_1 7 143
check_2 2 148
check_3 15 135
check_4 5 145
check_5 5 145
check_6 3 147

hmm ok. And let’s see if the same people failed multiple checks and how many.

checks_passed n
6 126
5 17
4 3
2 2
3 2

alright, so we’re gonna fully exclude anyone who passed less than 5 check (7 people) and flag people who didn’t pass check_3. They’ll be excluded just from any analysis that included relational expectancies.

Demographics

Race

race N Perc
asian 11 7.69
black 19 13.29
hispanic 6 4.20
multiracial 4 2.80
white 101 70.63
NA 2 1.40

Gender

gender N Perc
man 82 57.34
woman 60 41.96
NA 1 0.70

Age

age_mean age_sd
35.85106 9.170556

Education

edu N Perc
GED 26 18.18
2yearColl 13 9.09
4yearColl 70 48.95
MA 26 18.18
PHD 5 3.50
NA 3 2.10

Income

Employment

employment N Perc
Full-time 121 84.62
Full-time, Student 1 0.70
Other 1 0.70
Part-time 19 13.29
Part-time, Homemaker 1 0.70

Measures

Competitive Worldview

1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree

1. It’s a dog-eat-dog world where you have to be ruthless at times
2. Life is not governed by the “survival of the fittest.” We should let compassion and moral laws be our guide [R]
3. There is really no such thing as “right” and “wrong.” It all boils down to what you can get away with
4. One of the most useful skills a person should develop is how to look someone straight in the eye and lie convincingly
5. It is better to be loved than to be feared [R]
6. My knowledge and experience tell me that the social world we live in is basically a competitive “jungle” in which the fittest survive and succeed, in which power, wealth, and winning are everything, and might is right
7. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and never do anything unfair to someone else [R]
8. Basically people are objects to be quietly and coolly manipulated for one’s own benefit
9. Honesty is the best policy in all cases [R]
10. One should give others the benefit of the doubt. Most people are trustworthy if you have faith in them [R]

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.8

Generalized Trust

  1. How likely would you be to trust a stranger in general?
  2. How trustworthy are most people?

Pearson’s Correlation = 0.77

Cooperative Primal

1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree

1. For all life—from the smallest organisms, to plants, animals, and for people too—everything is a cut-throat competition [R]
2. Instead of being cooperative, life is a brutal contest where you’ve got to do whatever it takes to survive [R]
3. Instead of being cooperative, the world is a cut-throat and competitive place [R]
4. The world runs on trust and cooperation way more than suspicion and competition

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88

Status Zero-Sum Beliefs

1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree

1. When status for one person is increasing it means that status for another person is decreasing
2. Status is a limited good—when one person gains in status it inevitably comes at another person’s expense
3. When one person moves up the social hierarchy it means that another person has to move down the hierarchy
4. If someone wants to move up the social hierarchy, they have to do so at someone else’s expense
5. Status is not a finite resource [R]
6. When one person has a lot of status it doesn’t mean that someone else lacks status [R]
7. Not everyone can be high status. If one person has higher status, someone else must have lower status
8. When one person gains in status, it does not mean that someone else is losing status [R]

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89

Expectancies: Dominance | Influence

What leads someone to have influence?

Below, we list some attributes and behaviors that a person might display in a group of other people. What do you think is the impact of each of these things on whether that person has influence over others in that group?

1 = Strong negative effect on influence to 7 = Strong positive effect on influence

1. Enjoying having control over other members of the group
2. Often trying to get their own way regardless of what others in the group may want
3. Being willing to use aggressive tactics to get their way
4. Trying to control others rather than permit others to control them
5. NOT having a forceful or dominant personality [R]
6. Having members of the group know it is better to let them have their way
7. NOT enjoying having authority over other members of the group [R]
8. Having members of their group being afraid of them
9. Others NOT enjoying hanging out with them

Note that item 6 above is the problematic one. I’ll get alpha scores with and without that item. And I’ll show distributions for both.

Cronbach’s alpha for scale with item 6 = 0.86
Cronbach’s alpha for scale without item 6 = 0.84

hmm, it’s actually holding pretty well with the rest of the scale. Maybe participants understood that item better than I did. No need to exclude the item, I guess.

Expectancies: Dominance | Relationships

Note that for this, I’m excluding participants who couldn’t scroll

What leads someone to have good relationships?

Below, we list some attributes and behaviors that a person might display in a group of other people. What do you think is the impact of each of these things on whether that person has good relationships with others in that group?

1 = Strong negative effect on relationships to 7 = Strong positive effect on relationships

1. Enjoying having control over other members of the group
2. Often trying to get their own way regardless of what others in the group may want
3. Being willing to use aggressive tactics to get their way
4. Trying to control others rather than permit others to control them
5. NOT having a forceful or dominant personality [R]
6. Having members of the group know it is better to let them have their way
7. NOT enjoying having authority over other members of the group [R]
8. Having members of their group being afraid of them
9. Others NOT enjoying hanging out with them

Cronbach’s alpha for scale with item 6 = 0.81
Cronbach’s alpha for scale without item 6 = 0.8

Again. No difference. I’ll keep that item.

Self: Dominance

We’re now going to shift to some of your other experiences at work.

Please indicate the extent to which each statement below accurately describes you at work, using any of the points on the 7 point scale…

1 = Not at all to 7 = Very much

1. I enjoy (or would enjoy) having control over others at work
2. I often try to get my own way at work regardless of what others may want
3. I am willing to use aggressive tactics to get my way at work
4. I try to control others rather than permit them to control me at work
5. I do NOT have a forceful or dominant personality at work [R]
6. Others know it is better to let me have my way at work
7. I do NOT enjoying having authority over other people at work [R]
8. Some people at work are afraid of me
9. Others at work do NOT enjoying hanging out with me

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87

Expectancies: Prestige | Influence

What leads someone to have influence?

Below, we list some attributes and behaviors that a person might display in a group of other people. What do you think is the impact of each of these things on whether that person has influence over others in that group?

1 = Strong negative effect on influence to 7 = Strong positive effect on influence

1. Having members of their group respect and admire them
2. Having members of their group always expect him/her to be successful.
3. Having members of their group do NOT value their opinion [R]
4. Being held in high esteem by members of the group
5. Being considered an expert on some matters by members of the group
6. Having their unique talents and abilities are recognized by others in the group
7. Having members of their group seek their advice on a variety of matters

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81

Expectancies: Prestige | Relationships

Note that for this, I’m excluding participants who couldn’t scroll

What leads someone to have good relationships?

Below, we list some attributes and behaviors that a person might display in a group of other people. What do you think is the impact of each of these things on whether that person has good relationships with others in that group?

1 = Strong negative effect on relationships to 7 = Strong positive effect on relationships

1. Having members of their group respect and admire them
2. Having members of their group always expect him/her to be successful.
3. Having members of their group do NOT value their opinion [R]
4. Being held in high esteem by members of the group
5. Being considered an expert on some matters by members of the group
6. Having their unique talents and abilities are recognized by others in the group
7. Having members of their group seek their advice on a variety of matters

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81

Self: Prestige

We’re now going to shift to some of your other experiences at work.

Please indicate the extent to which each statement below accurately describes you at work, using any of the points on the 7 point scale…

1 = Not at all to 7 = Very much

1. My peers at work respect and admire me
2. Others at work always expect me to be successful
3. Others do NOT value my opinion at work [R]
4. I am held in high esteem by those I know at work
5. I am considered an expert on some matters by others at work
6. My unique talents and abilities are recognized by others at work
7. Others seek my advice on a variety of matters at work

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81

Influence and relationship concerns

Care about having influence

In your work life, to what extent do you care about having influence over the people you work with? (1 = I don’t care about having influence at all to 5 = I care about having influence a great deal)

Care about having good relationships

In your work life, to what extent do you care about having good relationships with the people you work with? (1 = I don’t care about this at all to 5 = I care about this a great deal)

Bothered about not having influence

In your work life, to what extent would it bother you if you did NOT have much influence of other people at work? (1 = I would not be bothered at all if I didn’t have influence to 5 = I would be greatly bothered if I didn’t have influence)

Bothered about not having good relationships

In your work life, to what extent would it bother you if you did NOT have good relationships with other people at work? (1 = I would not be bothered at all if I didn’t have good relationships to 5 = I would be greatly bothered if I didn’t have good relationships)

Tradeoff

In your work life, to what extent would you be willing to lose out on some good relationships in order to get ahead? (1 = Extremely unwilling to 5 = Extremely willing)

Peer dominance scenario

Please read the following scenario carefully…

Imagine that you work as a manager in a 50-person company that provides printing services to local businesses, like creating customized signs for walls. You’re hiring a new sales person who would be responsible for setting up contracts with new customers. The owner (your boss) asked you and another manager, Luke, to make a final decision on whom to hire. Luke has been at the company for a few months. You’ve interaction a number of times. Although you don’t know very well, you get the sense that he aspires to a more senior position. Both of you will have to deal with whomever is in this new sales role.

You preferred one of the final two candidates, Abby, who had a lot of relevant experience. You got the feeling that Luke preferred the other candidate, Beth, who had less experience but seemed more energetic.

In your meeting to decide whom to hire, Luke put his hand on his hips and launched into his view, saying the following to you:

It’s obvious we need to hire Beth. She’s got a lot of hustle, ready to follow our lead. Abby looks like a burnout. You’d be crazy to prefer Abby. If you don’t get behind hiring Beth, you’re going to have a hard time getting my support on anything else around here. And I’ll take this issue directly to the boss if I have to. Let’s finish this now and hire Beth.

Comply: Meta-perceptions

How do you think other people would react? What share of people, if they were in this situation with Luke, would go along with Luke’s request to hire Beth? (1 = Very few people 0%-20% to 5 = Nearly everyone 80%-100%)

Comply: Self-report

Imagine you were in this situation. Would you go along with Luke’s request to hire Beth?

Please select the option that best fits your likely response. (1 = Definitely no to 4 = Definitely yes)

Percentage of people who either selected Probably yes or Definitely yes: 32.67

Comply: Gap between meta-perception and self-reports

To do this, I just subtracted the actual share from the perceived share. Note that, still, 1 means 0%-20%, 2 means 20%-40%, and so on. So, for this one, the ground truth is 2 (20%-40%). If someone indicated 2 in the meta-perceptions questions, they’ll get a 0 in the “gaps” measure, which means they got it exactly right. Positive numbers are overestimates; negative number are underestimates.

Relationships: Meta-perceptions

What share of people, if they were in this situation, would say this interaction would have a negative effect on their relationship with Luke? (1 = Very few people 0%-20% to 5 = Nearly everyone 80%-100%)

Relationships: Self-report

Would you say this interaction would have a negative effect on your relationship with Luke?

Please select the option that best fits your likely response. (1 = Definitely no to 4 = Definitely yes)

Percentage of people who either selected Probably yes or Definitely yes: 82

Relationships: Gap between meta-perception and self-reports

To do this, I just subtracted the actual share from the perceived share. Note that, still, 1 means 0%-20%, 2 means 20%-40%, and so on. Positive numbers are overestimates; negative number are underestimates.

Manager dominance scenario

Please read the following scenario carefully…

Imagine that you work at a large company that is preparing for a large training conference for hundreds of its employees that will take place over a weekend. You’ve worked a long and exhausting week preparing materials for the conference. You’re tired but pleased with the work you’ve done.

The day before the conference, one colleague, part of a team of six who were supposed to be on-site to help administer the conference, called in sick, unable to attend. You weren’t scheduled to attend. You consider going but realize you have family plans for the weekend and you feel that the rest of the team can pretty easily handle what’s needed.

Your manager, who won’t be at the conference, but who is partly responsible for putting it on, calls you into their office. They’re relatively new and have been ok to work with so far. Before you even get through the door, they say…

I’m sick and tired of you people dropping out at the last minute. Whatever you had planned this weekend, cancel it. You need to report to the conference and do whatever it takes to help make it perfect. I don’t want to hear any complaints because this is your job. If you don’t go, you’re going to regret it.

Comply: Meta-perceptions

How do you think other people would react? What share of people, if they were in this situation, would go along with the Manager’s request to go to the conference? (1 = Very few people 0%-20% to 5 = Nearly everyone 80%-100%)

Comply: Self-report

Imagine you were in this situation. Would you go along with the Manager’s request to go to the to conference?

Please select the option that best fits your likely response. (1 = Definitely no to 4 = Definitely yes)

Percentage of people who either selected Probably yes or Definitely yes: 61.33

Comply: Gap between meta-perception and self-reports

To do this, I just subtracted the actual share from the perceived share. Note that, still, 1 means 0%-20%, 2 means 20%-40%, and so on. Positive numbers are overestimates; negative number are underestimates.

Relationships: Meta-perceptions

What share of people, if they were in this situation, would say this interaction would have a negative effect on their relationship with the Manager? (1 = Very few people 0%-20% to 5 = Nearly everyone 80%-100%)

Relationships: Self-report

Would you say this interaction would have a negative effect on your relationship with the Manager? (1 = Definitely no to 4 = Definitely yes)

Percentage of people who either selected Probably yes or Definitely yes: 83.33

Relationships: Gap between meta-perception and self-reports

To do this, I just subtracted the actual share from the perceived share. Note that, still, 1 means 0%-20%, 2 means 20%-40%, and so on. Positive numbers are overestimates; negative number are underestimates.

Analysis

Correlations

CWV: Competitive worldview
ZSB: Status zero-sum beliefs
copri: Cooperative primal
trust: Generalized trust
infl_prestige: Influence expectancies | prestige
infl_dominance: Influence expectancies | dominance
rel_prestige: Relational expectancies | prestige
rel_dominance: Relational expectancies | dominance
self_prestige: Self-tendency | prestige
self_dominance: Self-tendency | dominance
Influence_care: Care about having influence
Relationship_care: Care about having good relationships
Influence_bother: Bothered about not having influence
Relationship_bother: Bothered about not having good relationships
tradeoff: Willingness to trade off relationships for influence
peer_comply_gap: Peer scenario | Gap between perceived compliance and self-reported compliance
peer_relation_gap: Peer scenario | Gap between perceived price to relationships and self-reported price to relationships
man_comply_gap: Manager scenario | Gap between perceived compliance and self-reported compliance
man_relation_gap: Manager scenario | Gap between perceived price to relationships and self-reported price to relationships

Without relational expectancies (full sample)

With relational expectancies (partial sample)

Wow. Ok. some initial reactions:

1. CWV is doing a far better job at predicting our mediators and dv’s than the other worldviews
2. High CWV people are much more likely to behave in a dominant way at work (see CWV <> self_dominance).
3. They acknowledge the high relational cost of dominance (see CWV <> rel_dominance), but they are willing to accept it (see tradeoff, relationship_care, relationship_bother).
4. On top of all that, they also underestimate these relational costs (see peer_relation_gap, man_relation_gap).

v cool.

Linear models

Predicting self dominance

LM 1: just CWV

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-55)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 1.01 [0.48, 1.54] 3.77 141 < .001
CWV 0.65 [0.47, 0.83] 7.18 141 < .001

LM 2: CWV + other worldviews

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-56)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept -0.68 [-1.89, 0.54] -1.10 138 .272
CWV 0.81 [0.58, 1.03] 7.06 138 < .001
ZSB 0.06 [-0.09, 0.21] 0.82 138 .415
Copri 0.14 [-0.01, 0.28] 1.87 138 .063
Trust 0.12 [-0.01, 0.25] 1.85 138 .066

CWV holds when accounting for trust, ZSB, and cooperative primal.

LM 3: CWV + dominance expectancies

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-57)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.32 [-0.23, 0.86] 1.15 130 .250
CWV 0.30 [0.12, 0.49] 3.20 130 .002
Infl dominance 0.07 [-0.07, 0.21] 0.94 130 .349
Rel dominance 0.60 [0.39, 0.81] 5.68 130 < .001

LM 4: Interaction of CWV and dominance relationship expectancy

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-58)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.28 [-1.11, 1.66] 0.40 130 .691
CWV 0.36 [-0.08, 0.79] 1.61 130 .110
Rel dominance 0.69 [0.05, 1.33] 2.14 130 .034
CWV \(\times\) Rel dominance -0.02 [-0.20, 0.16] -0.20 130 .845

No interaction. Relational impact of dominance just sucks up all the variance.

LM 5: Interaction of CWV and relational perception gap

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-59)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 1.30 [0.62, 1.97] 3.79 139 < .001
CWV 0.49 [0.25, 0.74] 3.96 139 < .001
Peer relation gap 0.17 [-0.32, 0.66] 0.69 139 .489
CWV \(\times\) Peer relation gap -0.10 [-0.26, 0.06] -1.27 139 .205

LM 6: Interaction of CWV and relationship concern

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-60)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 3.27 [1.02, 5.51] 2.88 139 .005
CWV -0.05 [-0.71, 0.61] -0.15 139 .879
Relationship care -0.55 [-1.07, -0.03] -2.08 139 .039
CWV \(\times\) Relationship care 0.17 [0.02, 0.33] 2.18 139 .031

relationship is stronger for this who care about having good relationships with others. Makes sense.

LM 7: Interaction of CWV and tradeoff

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-62)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.62 [-0.54, 1.78] 1.05 139 .294
CWV 0.55 [0.12, 0.97] 2.53 139 .012
Tradeoff 0.30 [-0.11, 0.72] 1.46 139 .146
CWV \(\times\) Tradeoff -0.02 [-0.15, 0.12] -0.25 139 .803

No interaction.

Mediation models

Model 1

CWV -> expected relational benefit of dominance behavior -> self dominance behavior

a = 0.47 (p = 0)
b = 0.63 (p = 0)
direct = 0.61 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.32 (p = 0.001)

oooo this mediation is looking nice.

Model 2

CWV -> relation perception gap in peer scenario -> self dominance behavior

a = -0.43 (p = 0)
b = -0.13 (p = 0.071)
direct = 0.65 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.59 (p = 0)

Model 3

CWV -> tradeoff -> self dominance behavior

a = 0.59 (p = 0)
b = 0.26 (p = 0.001)
direct = 0.65 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.5 (p = 0)

That’s looking prettttyyyy good.