Diane
15-02-2007, 04:36 PM
On Mindblog (http://dericbownds.net/2007/02/warmth-and-competence_15.html) today I found a reference to this article (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH9-4MMP640-4&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F28%2F2007&_rdoc=8&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info%28%23toc%236061%232007%23999889997%23643235%23FLA%23display%23Volume%2 9&_cdi=6061&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=9&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=990ceeb5b59cab41fa822d84e44dd9ad):
Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence
Susan T. Fiske1, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Amy J.C. Cuddy2 and Peter Glick3
1Department of Psychology, Green Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA
2Management and Organizations Department, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208, USA
3Psychology Department, Lawrence University, PO Box 599, Appleton, WI 54912, USA
Available online 22 December 2006.
Like all perception, social perception reflects evolutionary pressures. In encounters with conspecifics, social animals must determine, immediately, whether the ‘other’ is friend or foe (i.e. intends good or ill) and, then, whether the ‘other’ has the ability to enact those intentions. New data confirm these two universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Promoting survival, these dimensions provide fundamental social structural answers about competition and status. People perceived as warm and competent elicit uniformly positive emotions and behavior, whereas those perceived as lacking warmth and competence elicit uniform negativity. People classified as high on one dimension and low on the other elicit predictable, ambivalent affective and behavioral reactions. These universal dimensions explain both interpersonal and intergroup social cognition.
I think this is at the exact center of our conundrum as social groomers, i.e., our inability to move rapidly toward sensible hypotheses or theories of why whatever we think we are doing works. Obviously, social grooming works or not depending on how "warm&competent" we are perceived to be by patients - truth that is bitter, because we'd like it to be because we are doing something intricate and smart with some anatomical/mesodermal bit or other of their body. Every social groomer argues from their preferred construct instead of from this simple reality, a confounding variable (http://www.chssc.salford.ac.uk/healthSci/resmeth2000/resmeth/confvars.htm) without a lot of variability, like skin reception that no one wants to think about either.
One more reason we need to include evolutionary reasoning into our mix of factors to consider.
Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence
Susan T. Fiske1, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Amy J.C. Cuddy2 and Peter Glick3
1Department of Psychology, Green Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA
2Management and Organizations Department, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208, USA
3Psychology Department, Lawrence University, PO Box 599, Appleton, WI 54912, USA
Available online 22 December 2006.
Like all perception, social perception reflects evolutionary pressures. In encounters with conspecifics, social animals must determine, immediately, whether the ‘other’ is friend or foe (i.e. intends good or ill) and, then, whether the ‘other’ has the ability to enact those intentions. New data confirm these two universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Promoting survival, these dimensions provide fundamental social structural answers about competition and status. People perceived as warm and competent elicit uniformly positive emotions and behavior, whereas those perceived as lacking warmth and competence elicit uniform negativity. People classified as high on one dimension and low on the other elicit predictable, ambivalent affective and behavioral reactions. These universal dimensions explain both interpersonal and intergroup social cognition.
I think this is at the exact center of our conundrum as social groomers, i.e., our inability to move rapidly toward sensible hypotheses or theories of why whatever we think we are doing works. Obviously, social grooming works or not depending on how "warm&competent" we are perceived to be by patients - truth that is bitter, because we'd like it to be because we are doing something intricate and smart with some anatomical/mesodermal bit or other of their body. Every social groomer argues from their preferred construct instead of from this simple reality, a confounding variable (http://www.chssc.salford.ac.uk/healthSci/resmeth2000/resmeth/confvars.htm) without a lot of variability, like skin reception that no one wants to think about either.
One more reason we need to include evolutionary reasoning into our mix of factors to consider.