Background

After pretty nice pilot study, we preregistered a high-powered replication with some minor tweaks.

Preregistered hypotheses

  1. Competitive worldview will be positively associated with self-reported dominance strategies.
  2. Competitive worldview will be positively associated with relationship expectancies of dominance strategies.
  3. The relationship between competitive worldview and self dominance strategies will be–at least partially–explained by relationship expectancies of dominance strategies.

Preregistered analysis plan

  1. Linear model: Competitive worldview as the main predictor; self-dominance strategies as the outcome.
  2. Linear model: Competitive worldview as the main predictor; relational expectancies of dominance strategies as the outcome.
  3. Mediation model: Competitive worldview as the predictor; relational expectancies of dominance strategies as the mediator; self-dominance strategies as the outcome.
  4. All models above with the following controls: Zero-sum beliefs, relationship concerns, race, gender, age, income, and education.

Exploratory analysis

  1. All models from the analysis plan, with cooperative primals as the main predictor, as opposed to competitive worldview.
  2. All models from the analysis plan, with the TOPS-coercive measure as the mediator, as opposed to relational expectancies as the mediator.
  3. All models from the analysis plan, with the TOPS-cooperative measure as the mediator, as opposed to relational expectancies as the mediator.
  4. All models from the analysis plan, with influence expectancies of dominance strategies as the mediator, as opposed to relational expectancies as the mediator.
  5. All models from the analysis plan, with self-reported prestige strategies as the outcome variable, relational expectancies of prestige strategies as the mediator, and influence expectancies of prestige as the control variable, as opposed to self-reported dominance strategies as the outcome variable, relational expectancies of dominance strategies as the mediator, and influence expectancies of dominance as the control variable.

Attention checks

There were two attention checks. Both just asked participants to select a certain point on the scale.

att_1 att_2 n
0 0 1
0 1 7
1 0 12
1 1 279

Alright, that leaves us with 279. ok.

Demographics

Race

race N Perc
asian 27 9.68
black 29 10.39
hispanic 7 2.51
multiracial 22 7.89
white 193 69.18
NA 1 0.36

Gender

gender N Perc
man 158 56.63
woman 119 42.65
NA 2 0.72

Age

age_mean age_sd
38.4927 10.58413

Education

edu N Perc
GED 56 20.07
2yearColl 37 13.26
4yearColl 123 44.09
MA 44 15.77
PHD 17 6.09
NA 2 0.72

Income

Employment

employment N Perc
Full-time 239 85.66
Full-time, Student 2 0.72
Homemaker 1 0.36
Other 2 0.72
Part-time 32 11.47
Retired 2 0.72
Unemployed 1 0.36

oh, I need to exclude the retired, unemployed, and homemaker.

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 = 0.83

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 = 0.86

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 him/her have his/her 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 = 0.86

Expectancies: Dominance | Relationships

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 him/her have his/her 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 = 0.85

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 = 0.86

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 = 0.82

Expectancies: Prestige | Relationships

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 = 0.76

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 = 0.88

TOPS: Coercive

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree)

1. Maintaining power requires ruthlessness
2. People keep power by being feared by others
3. People gain power through the use of manipulation and deception
4. People mainly gain power by force
5. To maintain power, a person must be willing to do whatever is necessary, including breaking the rules, using force, and coercion
6. People most typically gain power by reducing the status of other people
7. Often it requires aggression to gain power
8. An influential individual is typically intimidating
9. Having power means always having the “final say”
10. Power is usually vertically arranged, with a few people at the top having most of the influence and many at the bottom having little to none

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91

TOPS: Collaborative

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree)

1. Maintaining power requires the ability to collaborate and compromise with others
2. Maintaining power requires compassion for others
3. People rise in power through virtue and respect
4. Having high ethical and moral standards is necessary to keep power
5. Powerful individuals focus on the needs of group members
6. Influential individuals need to be approachable and empathetic
7. Gaining power requires collaboration with other individuals
8. People most typically gain power by being given responsibilities and opportunities by others
9. In a group, there can be many influential people
10. Power is often shared by many individuals in a group

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89

Care about having influence

Mean score of the following two items:

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)

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)

r = 0.69

Care about having good relationships

Mean score of the following two items:

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)

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)

r = 0.64

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)

Analysis

Correlations

CWV: Competitive worldview
ZSB: Status zero-sum beliefs
copri: Cooperative primal
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
TOPS_coer: TOPS | coercive
TOPS_coll: TOPS | collaboative
care_infl: Care about having influence
care_rel: Care about having good relationships
tradeoff: Willingness to trade off relationships for influence

Analysis Plan

LM1: CWV -> Self-dominance strategies

Without controls

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-38)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.96 [0.62, 1.30] 5.52 273 < .001
CWV 0.61 [0.49, 0.72] 10.52 273 < .001

With controls 1

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-39)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 1.06 [0.67, 1.44] 5.45 272 < .001
CWV 0.64 [0.51, 0.77] 9.91 272 < .001
ZSB -0.06 [-0.15, 0.04] -1.12 272 .265

With controls 2

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-40)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.56 [-0.14, 1.26] 1.58 271 .116
CWV 0.67 [0.54, 0.80] 10.01 271 < .001
ZSB -0.06 [-0.15, 0.04] -1.13 271 .259
Rel care 0.10 [-0.02, 0.22] 1.67 271 .095

With controls 3

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-41)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.02 [-0.98, 1.03] 0.04 254 .965
CWV 0.69 [0.55, 0.84] 9.67 254 < .001
ZSB -0.05 [-0.15, 0.05] -0.99 254 .323
Rel care 0.09 [-0.04, 0.21] 1.37 254 .171
Age 0.00 [-0.01, 0.01] -0.22 254 .827
Raceblack 0.19 [-0.30, 0.68] 0.76 254 .450
Racehispanic 0.64 [-0.12, 1.41] 1.66 254 .099
Racemultiracial 0.41 [-0.11, 0.93] 1.55 254 .122
Racewhite 0.27 [-0.11, 0.66] 1.40 254 .162
Genderwoman -0.09 [-0.31, 0.13] -0.79 254 .429
As numericedu 0.07 [-0.04, 0.17] 1.26 254 .209
As numericincome 0.02 [-0.03, 0.07] 0.84 254 .404

AWESOME.

LM2: CWV -> Relational expectancies of dominance strategies

Without controls

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-42)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.98 [0.69, 1.26] 6.68 273 < .001
CWV 0.48 [0.38, 0.57] 9.84 273 < .001

With controls 1

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-43)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.91 [0.59, 1.24] 5.61 272 < .001
CWV 0.46 [0.35, 0.56] 8.42 272 < .001
ZSB 0.04 [-0.05, 0.12] 0.86 272 .393

With controls 2

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-44)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 1.02 [0.43, 1.61] 3.40 271 < .001
CWV 0.45 [0.34, 0.56] 7.94 271 < .001
ZSB 0.04 [-0.05, 0.12] 0.86 271 .393
Rel care -0.02 [-0.12, 0.08] -0.42 271 .678

With controls 3

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-45)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 0.70 [-0.13, 1.52] 1.66 254 .099
CWV 0.46 [0.35, 0.58] 7.85 254 < .001
ZSB 0.04 [-0.04, 0.12] 1.02 254 .311
Rel care -0.04 [-0.14, 0.06] -0.79 254 .433
Age 0.00 [-0.01, 0.01] 0.07 254 .941
Raceblack -0.03 [-0.44, 0.37] -0.15 254 .877
Racehispanic 0.17 [-0.46, 0.80] 0.54 254 .591
Racemultiracial 0.26 [-0.17, 0.69] 1.20 254 .229
Racewhite 0.29 [-0.02, 0.61] 1.82 254 .070
Genderwoman -0.19 [-0.37, -0.01] -2.05 254 .041
As numericedu 0.08 [0.00, 0.17] 1.87 254 .063
As numericincome -0.03 [-0.06, 0.01] -1.36 254 .175

SWEET.

Mediation: CWV -> Relational expectancies of dominance strategies -> Self-dominance strategies

Without controls

a = 0.48 (p = 0)
b = 0.57 (p = 0)
direct = 0.61 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.33 (p = 0)

With controls 1

a = 0.46 (p = 0)
b = 0.58 (p = 0)
direct = 0.64 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.38 (p = 0)

With controls 2

a = 0.45 (p = 0)
b = 0.58 (p = 0)
direct = 0.67 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.41 (p = 0)

With controls 3

a = 0.42 (p = 0)
b = 0.59 (p = 0)
direct = 0.64 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.39 (p = 0)

WOW. Got ’em all. V cool.

Exploratory Analysis 1

All models from the analysis plan, with cooperative primals as the main predictor, as opposed to competitive worldview.

LM1: copri -> Self-dominance strategies

Without controls

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-50)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 3.55 [3.17, 3.94] 18.23 273 < .001
Copri -0.21 [-0.29, -0.12] -4.63 273 < .001

With controls 1

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-51)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 3.18 [2.50, 3.86] 9.24 272 < .001
Copri -0.18 [-0.27, -0.08] -3.56 272 < .001
ZSB 0.07 [-0.04, 0.19] 1.31 272 .190

With controls 2

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-52)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 3.43 [2.56, 4.31] 7.75 271 < .001
Copri -0.17 [-0.27, -0.08] -3.52 271 < .001
ZSB 0.07 [-0.04, 0.18] 1.21 271 .226
Rel care -0.06 [-0.19, 0.07] -0.91 271 .362

With controls 3

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-53)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 2.97 [1.77, 4.18] 4.85 254 < .001
Copri -0.16 [-0.26, -0.06] -3.19 254 .002
ZSB 0.08 [-0.04, 0.19] 1.29 254 .199
Rel care -0.10 [-0.23, 0.04] -1.43 254 .154
Age -0.01 [-0.02, 0.01] -1.15 254 .251
Raceblack 0.20 [-0.37, 0.76] 0.69 254 .491
Racehispanic 0.22 [-0.66, 1.10] 0.49 254 .624
Racemultiracial 0.26 [-0.34, 0.86] 0.85 254 .395
Racewhite 0.20 [-0.24, 0.64] 0.90 254 .369
Genderwoman -0.15 [-0.40, 0.10] -1.20 254 .231
As numericedu 0.18 [0.06, 0.30] 3.03 254 .003
As numericincome 0.01 [-0.05, 0.06] 0.21 254 .833

LM2: copri -> Relational expectancies of dominance strategies

Without controls

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-54)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 2.81 [2.49, 3.14] 17.12 273 < .001
Copri -0.11 [-0.19, -0.04] -3.02 273 .003

With controls 1

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-55)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 1.97 [1.41, 2.53] 6.91 272 < .001
Copri -0.05 [-0.13, 0.03] -1.14 272 .253
ZSB 0.17 [0.08, 0.26] 3.61 272 < .001

With controls 2

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-56)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 2.53 [1.81, 3.24] 6.97 271 < .001
Copri -0.04 [-0.12, 0.04] -1.05 271 .293
ZSB 0.16 [0.07, 0.25] 3.37 271 < .001
Rel care -0.14 [-0.24, -0.03] -2.46 271 .014

With controls 3

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-57)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 2.24 [1.28, 3.21] 4.58 254 < .001
Copri -0.04 [-0.12, 0.04] -0.87 254 .385
ZSB 0.16 [0.07, 0.26] 3.48 254 < .001
Rel care -0.17 [-0.28, -0.06] -3.10 254 .002
Age 0.00 [-0.01, 0.01] -0.79 254 .432
Raceblack -0.01 [-0.46, 0.44] -0.04 254 .969
Racehispanic -0.03 [-0.74, 0.67] -0.09 254 .928
Racemultiracial 0.15 [-0.33, 0.62] 0.60 254 .548
Racewhite 0.25 [-0.10, 0.60] 1.39 254 .165
Genderwoman -0.23 [-0.43, -0.03] -2.27 254 .024
As numericedu 0.16 [0.07, 0.26] 3.37 254 < .001
As numericincome -0.03 [-0.07, 0.01] -1.51 254 .131

Mediation: copri -> Relational expectancies of dominance strategies -> Self-dominance strategies

Without controls

a = -0.11 (p = 0.003)
b = 0.72 (p = 0)
direct = -0.21 (p = 0)
indirect = -0.12 (p = 0.001)

With controls 1

a = -0.05 (p = 0.253)
b = 0.73 (p = 0)
direct = -0.18 (p = 0)
indirect = -0.14 (p = 0)

With controls 2

a = -0.04 (p = 0.293)
b = 0.74 (p = 0)
direct = -0.17 (p = 0.001)
indirect = -0.14 (p = 0)

With controls 3

a = -0.04 (p = 0.315)
b = 0.73 (p = 0)
direct = -0.16 (p = 0.001)
indirect = -0.13 (p = 0.001)

Exploratory Analysis 2

All models from the analysis plan, with the TOPS-coercive measure as the mediator, as opposed to relational expectancies as the mediator.

LM1: CWV -> Self-dominance strategies

No need to repeat this.

LM2: CWV -> TOPS: Coercive

Without controls

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-62)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 2.46 [2.03, 2.89] 11.23 273 < .001
CWV 0.50 [0.36, 0.64] 6.88 273 < .001

With controls 1

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-63)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 1.74 [1.30, 2.18] 7.76 272 < .001
CWV 0.26 [0.11, 0.40] 3.45 272 < .001
ZSB 0.42 [0.31, 0.53] 7.33 272 < .001

With controls 2

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-64)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 1.53 [0.72, 2.34] 3.73 271 < .001
CWV 0.27 [0.12, 0.42] 3.47 271 < .001
ZSB 0.42 [0.31, 0.53] 7.32 271 < .001
Rel care 0.04 [-0.10, 0.18] 0.59 271 .556

With controls 3

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-65)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 1.19 [0.02, 2.35] 2.00 254 .046
CWV 0.24 [0.08, 0.41] 2.90 254 .004
ZSB 0.45 [0.33, 0.56] 7.54 254 < .001
Rel care 0.00 [-0.14, 0.15] 0.01 254 .991
Age 0.00 [-0.01, 0.02] 0.72 254 .470
Raceblack -0.04 [-0.61, 0.53] -0.14 254 .892
Racehispanic 0.54 [-0.34, 1.43] 1.21 254 .228
Racemultiracial 0.62 [0.02, 1.23] 2.02 254 .044
Racewhite 0.13 [-0.32, 0.57] 0.56 254 .575
Genderwoman 0.11 [-0.14, 0.37] 0.89 254 .376
As numericedu 0.06 [-0.06, 0.19] 0.99 254 .322
As numericincome -0.02 [-0.07, 0.04] -0.56 254 .575

Mediation: CWV -> TOPS: Coercive -> Self-dominance strategies

Without controls

a = 0.5 (p = 0)
b = -0.03 (p = 0.485)
direct = 0.61 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.62 (p = 0)

With controls 1

a = 0.26 (p = 0.001)
b = -0.01 (p = 0.788)
direct = 0.64 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.64 (p = 0)

With controls 2

a = 0.27 (p = 0.001)
b = -0.02 (p = 0.741)
direct = 0.67 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.68 (p = 0)

With controls 3

a = 0.27 (p = 0.001)
b = -0.02 (p = 0.729)
direct = 0.64 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.65 (p = 0)

Exploratory Analysis 3

All models from the analysis plan, with the TOPS-cooperative measure as the mediator, as opposed to relational expectancies as the mediator.

LM1: CWV -> Self-dominance strategies

No need to repeat this.

LM2: CWV -> TOPS: Collaborative

Without controls

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-70)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 5.93 [5.57, 6.29] 32.44 273 < .001
CWV -0.26 [-0.38, -0.14] -4.24 273 < .001

With controls 1

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-71)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 6.32 [5.93, 6.71] 32.10 272 < .001
CWV -0.13 [-0.25, 0.00] -1.91 272 .057
ZSB -0.23 [-0.33, -0.13] -4.50 272 < .001

With controls 2

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-72)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 5.28 [4.58, 5.98] 14.92 271 < .001
CWV -0.06 [-0.19, 0.07] -0.88 271 .381
ZSB -0.23 [-0.33, -0.13] -4.61 271 < .001
Rel care 0.21 [0.09, 0.34] 3.50 271 < .001

With controls 3

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-73)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 5.19 [4.19, 6.20] 10.20 254 < .001
CWV -0.04 [-0.18, 0.10] -0.54 254 .590
ZSB -0.24 [-0.34, -0.14] -4.76 254 < .001
Rel care 0.22 [0.10, 0.35] 3.52 254 < .001
Age 0.00 [-0.01, 0.01] -0.50 254 .614
Raceblack 0.12 [-0.37, 0.61] 0.50 254 .620
Racehispanic 0.22 [-0.54, 0.99] 0.58 254 .562
Racemultiracial -0.28 [-0.81, 0.24] -1.08 254 .282
Racewhite -0.19 [-0.57, 0.20] -0.96 254 .339
Genderwoman 0.18 [-0.04, 0.40] 1.62 254 .106
As numericedu 0.06 [-0.05, 0.16] 1.04 254 .298
As numericincome 0.00 [-0.05, 0.04] -0.18 254 .854

Mediation: CWV -> TOPS: Collaborative -> Self-dominance strategies

Without controls

a = -0.26 (p = 0)
b = 0.2 (p = 0)
direct = 0.61 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.66 (p = 0)

With controls 1

a = -0.13 (p = 0.057)
b = 0.2 (p = 0.001)
direct = 0.64 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.66 (p = 0)

With controls 2

a = -0.06 (p = 0.381)
b = 0.18 (p = 0.003)
direct = 0.67 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.68 (p = 0)

With controls 3

a = -0.07 (p = 0.291)
b = 0.19 (p = 0.002)
direct = 0.64 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.66 (p = 0)

Exploratory Analysis 4

All models from the analysis plan, with influence expectancies of dominance strategies as the mediator, as opposed to relational expectancies as the mediator.

LM1: CWV -> Self-dominance strategies

No need to repeat this.

LM2: CWV -> Influence expectancies of dominance strategies

Without controls

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-78)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 1.85 [1.45, 2.24] 9.21 273 < .001
CWV 0.46 [0.33, 0.59] 6.91 273 < .001

With controls 1

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-79)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 1.70 [1.26, 2.14] 7.63 272 < .001
CWV 0.41 [0.27, 0.56] 5.54 272 < .001
ZSB 0.08 [-0.03, 0.20] 1.48 272 .140

With controls 2

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-80)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 2.33 [1.53, 3.13] 5.72 271 < .001
CWV 0.37 [0.22, 0.52] 4.81 271 < .001
ZSB 0.09 [-0.03, 0.20] 1.50 271 .136
Rel care -0.13 [-0.27, 0.01] -1.84 271 .067

With controls 3

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-81)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 3.27 [2.13, 4.41] 5.64 254 < .001
CWV 0.36 [0.20, 0.52] 4.41 254 < .001
ZSB 0.06 [-0.05, 0.18] 1.08 254 .279
Rel care -0.17 [-0.31, -0.03] -2.36 254 .019
Age -0.01 [-0.02, 0.00] -2.08 254 .039
Raceblack -0.57 [-1.13, -0.01] -2.02 254 .044
Racehispanic 0.12 [-0.75, 0.98] 0.26 254 .793
Racemultiracial -0.12 [-0.72, 0.47] -0.41 254 .683
Racewhite -0.12 [-0.56, 0.31] -0.56 254 .577
Genderwoman -0.13 [-0.38, 0.12] -1.05 254 .293
As numericedu 0.06 [-0.06, 0.19] 1.05 254 .296
As numericincome -0.04 [-0.09, 0.01] -1.53 254 .128

Mediation: CWV -> Influence expectancies of dominance strategies -> Self-dominance strategies

Without controls

a = 0.46 (p = 0)
b = 0.2 (p = 0)
direct = 0.61 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.52 (p = 0)

With controls 1

a = 0.41 (p = 0)
b = 0.21 (p = 0)
direct = 0.64 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.56 (p = 0)

With controls 2

a = 0.37 (p = 0)
b = 0.22 (p = 0)
direct = 0.67 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.59 (p = 0)

With controls 3

a = 0.33 (p = 0)
b = 0.22 (p = 0)
direct = 0.64 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.57 (p = 0)

Exploratory analysis 5

All models from the analysis plan, with self-reported prestige strategies as the outcome variable, relational expectancies of prestige strategies as the mediator, and influence expectancies of prestige as the control variable, as opposed to self-reported dominance strategies as the outcome variable, relational expectancies of dominance strategies as the mediator, and influence expectancies of dominance as the control variable.

LM1: CWV -> Self-prestige strategies

Without controls

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-86)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 5.57 [5.18, 5.97] 27.67 273 < .001
CWV -0.11 [-0.24, 0.02] -1.67 273 .097

With controls 1

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-87)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 5.90 [5.46, 6.33] 26.77 272 < .001
CWV 0.00 [-0.15, 0.14] -0.02 272 .984
ZSB -0.19 [-0.30, -0.08] -3.35 272 < .001

With controls 2

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-88)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 3.48 [2.77, 4.20] 9.54 271 < .001
CWV 0.15 [0.02, 0.29] 2.21 271 .028
ZSB -0.19 [-0.29, -0.09] -3.76 271 < .001
Rel care 0.50 [0.37, 0.62] 7.88 271 < .001

With controls 3

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-89)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 2.83 [1.77, 3.89] 5.26 254 < .001
CWV 0.17 [0.02, 0.32] 2.23 254 .027
ZSB -0.18 [-0.29, -0.08] -3.39 254 < .001
Rel care 0.49 [0.36, 0.62] 7.32 254 < .001
Age 0.00 [-0.01, 0.02] 0.68 254 .498
Raceblack 0.14 [-0.37, 0.66] 0.55 254 .582
Racehispanic 0.04 [-0.76, 0.85] 0.11 254 .915
Racemultiracial 0.17 [-0.38, 0.72] 0.60 254 .550
Racewhite 0.21 [-0.19, 0.62] 1.03 254 .304
Genderwoman -0.03 [-0.26, 0.20] -0.24 254 .813
As numericedu 0.03 [-0.08, 0.14] 0.51 254 .609
As numericincome 0.04 [-0.01, 0.09] 1.53 254 .127

LM2: CWV -> Relational expectancies of prestige strategies

Without controls

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-90)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 6.44 [6.19, 6.70] 49.19 273 < .001
CWV -0.19 [-0.28, -0.11] -4.39 273 < .001

With controls 1

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-91)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 6.50 [6.22, 6.79] 44.54 272 < .001
CWV -0.17 [-0.27, -0.07] -3.50 272 < .001
ZSB -0.04 [-0.11, 0.04] -0.95 272 .345

With controls 2

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-92)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 5.48 [4.97, 5.99] 21.25 271 < .001
CWV -0.11 [-0.20, -0.01] -2.15 271 .033
ZSB -0.04 [-0.11, 0.03] -1.01 271 .314
Rel care 0.21 [0.12, 0.30] 4.73 271 < .001

With controls 3

(#tab:unnamed-chunk-93)
Predictor \(b\) 95% CI \(t\) \(\mathit{df}\) \(p\)
Intercept 5.46 [4.72, 6.20] 14.52 254 < .001
CWV -0.11 [-0.21, 0.00] -2.02 254 .045
ZSB -0.04 [-0.11, 0.04] -1.03 254 .306
Rel care 0.20 [0.11, 0.29] 4.24 254 < .001
Age 0.00 [-0.01, 0.01] 0.17 254 .866
Raceblack 0.25 [-0.11, 0.61] 1.37 254 .171
Racehispanic 0.07 [-0.49, 0.63] 0.24 254 .809
Racemultiracial 0.09 [-0.29, 0.48] 0.47 254 .638
Racewhite -0.11 [-0.39, 0.18] -0.74 254 .458
Genderwoman 0.06 [-0.11, 0.22] 0.68 254 .499
As numericedu -0.03 [-0.11, 0.05] -0.78 254 .436
As numericincome 0.04 [0.01, 0.07] 2.34 254 .020

Mediation: CWV -> Relational expectancies of prestige strategies -> Self-prestige strategies

Without controls

a = -0.19 (p = 0)
b = 0.4 (p = 0)
direct = -0.11 (p = 0.097)
indirect = -0.03 (p = 0.603)

With controls 1

a = -0.17 (p = 0.001)
b = 0.38 (p = 0)
direct = 0 (p = 0.984)
indirect = 0.06 (p = 0.378)

With controls 2

a = -0.11 (p = 0.033)
b = 0.22 (p = 0.01)
direct = 0.15 (p = 0.028)
indirect = 0.18 (p = 0.011)

With controls 3

a = -0.1 (p = 0.047)
b = 0.23 (p = 0.01)
direct = 0.14 (p = 0.05)
indirect = 0.16 (p = 0.023)