Emotion Recognition Accuracy in Hierarchical ... - Hogrefe eContent

Swiss Journal of Psychology, 73 (2), 2014, 69–75

Sw issJ. M. Schmid Psychol.Mast 73 (2) &©A.2014 Darioly: Verlag Emotion Hans Huber, Recognition Hogrefe Accuracy AG , Bern

Original Communication

Emotion Recognition Accuracy in Hierarchical Relationships Marianne Schmid Mast and Annick Darioly Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Neuchatel, Switzerland Abstract. Whether superiors or subordinates are more accurate in assessing the emotions of others (aka emotion recognition accuracy, ERA) is a question that has gained much interest but yielded decidedly mixed empirical results. The present study investigates whether superiors and subordinates who are in an actual hierarchical relationship differ in their ERA. We investigated 142 superiors who each had recruited one of his or her direct subordinates (total N = 284). Superiors and subordinates each took a paper-pencil version of a standardized ERA test. Results showed that superiors were more accurate in assessing the emotions of other persons than subordinates were. Keywords: power, emotion recognition accuracy, interpersonal sensitivity, leadership

In a work environment with a high demand for productivity, employees commonly complain that their superiors are indifferent to them and consider them merely a means to an end. They feel reduced to tiny cogs in a complex machine, there only to keep the organization alive by fulfilling the function attached to their job. But in fact not all superiors reduce their subordinates to their job function, and supervisors who show an interest in and care for their subordinates have much to gain: The importance of individual consideration for effective leadership has been demonstrated abundantly (Bass, 1985; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Individual consideration includes paying attention to and correctly assessing subordinates’ emotions. As a superior, being able to accurately detect the emotions felt by subordinates, or by social interaction partners in general, is an important skill that produces positive effects on interaction outcomes. Correctly assessing the emotions of others not only helps prevent social faux pas, it also smoothens interpersonal interactions and positively affects interaction outcomes. Research shows that accurate emotion detection is positively linked to success in the case of salespeople (Byron, Terranova, & Nowicki, 2007) as well as to patient satisfaction (DiMatteo, Taranta, Friedman, & Prince, 1980) and appointment compliance in the case of physicians (DiMatteo, Hays, & Prince, 1986). Within the realm of the superior–subordinate interaction, the few existing studies also point to enhanced emotion recognition ability being related to better interaction outcomes. The ability to correctly assess other people’s emotions (emotion recognition accuracy, ERA) has been identified as a significant predictor of transformational leadership behavior (Rubin, Munz, & Bommer, 2005). Also, dyadic negotiaDOI 10.1024/1421-0185/a000124

tions resulted in better overall outcomes for the dyads when the high-power dyad member had increased ERA (Elfenbein, Foo, White, Tan, & Aik, 2007). Moreover, during a problem-solving task, those participants in the role of the superior who were better able to correctly assess the thoughts and feelings of others (on a standardized test) had more satisfied subordinates (participants allocated to the subordinate role in the task; Schmid Mast, Jonas, Klöckner Cronauer, & Darioly, 2012). In the same vein, in a study with real managers and their subordinates, female (but not male) managers who more accurately read the nonverbal emotional expressions of others had more satisfied subordinates (Byron, 2007). Subordinates may be particularly satisfied with a superior who is skilled in emotion recognition because they feel appreciated and feel that their superior’s reactions to their mood states are appropriate. Given the importance of good ERA for superiors, one wonders whether superiors are particularly skilled people in terms of emotion recognition, either because this skill helped them to more easily rise to the top or because having power makes superiors generally more accurate perceivers of the emotions of others – or both. To the extent that ERA is a skill that is helpful in climbing the corporate ladder to attain a high-power or status position within the company, a superior might have more pronounced ERA than his or her subordinates. Alternatively (or additionally), once in a high-power or status position, a superior might be particularly motivated to be good at reading the emotions of others correctly because it helps him or her to manage people and to obtain good leadership outcomes (Byron, 2007; Elfenbein et al., 2007; Schmid Mast et al., 2012). Both of these effects result in the preSwiss J. Psychol. 73 (2) © 2014 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

70

M. Schmid Mast & A. Darioly: Emotion Recognition Accuracy

diction that superiors have overall better ERA than their subordinates. To clarify the terms, superiors and their subordinates are in a hierarchical relationship that is defined by differences in control over other people: Superiors have more control than subordinates (Schmid Mast, 2010). This difference along the vertical dimension encompasses terms such as power, status, and dominance. Although there is no overall consensus concerning the definition of these terms, power is typically used for individuals who possess a function or position within a given hierarchy (Ellyson & Dovidio, 1985). The power an individual possesses because of being a member of a specific social group is usually called status (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). Status is also used to describe an individual’s earned respect within a group (Berger, Wagner, & Zelditch, 1983; Sherif, White, & Harvey, 1955). Dominance is typically reserved to describe a personality trait (Ellyson & Dovidio, 1985) as well as behavior aimed at controlling another person (Schmid Mast, 2010). How power – in all the above-defined facets – affects interpersonal accuracy is a question that has gained considerable research attention. A number of theoretical models explain the potential link between power and emotion recognition accuracy. In their continuum model Fiske and colleagues postulate that high-power individuals more easily stereotype others, and that low-power individuals are motivated to more deliberately process information about others (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Goodwin, Gubin, Fiske, & Yzerbyt, 2000). Keltner and colleagues argue similarly in their approach-inhibition model of power (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). Similarly, construal level theory (Trope & Liberman, 2010) states that powerful people focus on central, more global aspects when processing information. There is recent meta-analytic evidence that highpower individuals indeed process information in a more global, abstract, and analytic (context-independent) way (Schmid & Schmid Mast, 2013). Fiske and Neuberg (1990) as well as Keltner et al. (2003) predict that ERA is the opposite of stereotyping in that ERA requires a more deliberate and detailed-oriented (local) cognitive processing style, which is why these authors believe that high-power individuals should be worse at ERA than low-power individuals. Whether a more global or a more local processing style is detrimental or beneficial for emotion recognition remains, however, a relatively open question. There is evidence showing that a more global processing style is linked to better emotion recognition (Ambady & Gray, 2002; Bombari et al., 2013; Patterson, Baker, & Maeck, 1993). If this is true, then high-power individuals should be better at ERA than low-power individuals. Moreover, Keltner et al.’s (2003) approach–inhibition model of power posits that high-power individuals are more approach-motivated, and that, therefore, among other things, they experience more positive and less negative emotions. Some empirical evidence supports this view (Berdahl & Martorana, 2006). To the extent that positive emotions enhance and negative emotions hamper correct Swiss J. Psychol. 73 (2) © 2014 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

emotion recognition in others, high-power individuals should be better at correct emotion recognition than lowpower individuals. Empirical evidence to this end, however, is scarce and concerns the effect of negative rather than positive emotions on accurate emotion recognition. These studies show, that, indeed, negative emotions are detrimental to accurate emotion recognition in others (Ambady & Gray, 2002; Chepenik, Cornew, & Farah, 2007; Schroeder, 1995). Based on these theoretical considerations, high-power individuals should be better than low-power individuals at correctly assessing the emotions of others. A recent meta-analysis showed that, indeed, high-power individuals are significantly better at accurately assessing the emotions of others, but that the overall effect is very small (r = .07). More importantly, the heterogeneity of the effects is substantial (Hall, Schmid Mast, & Latu, 2013). Although this meta-analysis was on interpersonal accuracy encompassing more than just emotion recognition, a great majority of the studies used emotion recognition tasks. Due to the heterogeneity of the results, moderators appear to be at work, but we were only able to identify a few that made a difference. One such moderator is the way power is defined and operationalized, but the way interpersonal accuracy is operationalized also affects the results. The meta-analysis brought to our attention that studies that investigated emotion recognition accuracy in established actual hierarchies, for example, between actual superiors and subordinates are few and far between. This is one reason why the present study is important: It fills a gap in research. The meta-analysis showed that the empirical evidence gathered with respect to interpersonal accuracy of real superiors and real subordinates in actual companies is not only scarce, but also inconclusive (medium nonsignificant effect size of r = –.04). The picture is also unclear for studies on accurate emotion recognition (as opposed to the more general concept of interpersonal accuracy as studied in the meta-analysis) in real superiors and subordinates. Hall and Halberstadt (1994) investigated female employees and coded their status according to different factors including salary rank and subordination at work. The female employees’ skill at correctly interpreting nonverbal cues (intentions and emotions) was assessed with the Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity (PONS; Rosenthal, Hall, DiMatteo, Rogers, & Archer, 1979). These authors found that, when female employees were judging women, their status was positively related to their nonverbal decoding ability. However, there was no relationship between their status and decoding ability when they were assessing men. Using a measure that only focused on emotion recognition, Scherer and Scherer (2011) found no significant difference in ERA among employees of different organizational ranks. Côté et al. (2011) coded the organizational rank of employees and assessed ERA using the emotion recognition part of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002). Employees who scored low on agreeableness were less accurate in recognizing the emotions of others the higher their own job was ranked. How-

M. Schmid Mast & A. Darioly: Emotion Recognition Accuracy

ever, organizational rank and ERA were unrelated in employees who scored high on agreeableness (R. Rosenthal, personal communication, January 22, 2013). In addition, Rosenthal et al. (1979) found that, among businessmen, supervisors attained higher scores on the PONS than nonsupervisors did. None of these studies investigated pairs of real superiors and subordinates with respect to their ERA. Pairing superiors and their subordinates, and having them infer each other’s emotions during a real interaction, would be one way to assess their ERA. However, in vivo paradigms – which have been used with assigned power or status roles (Hall, Rosip, Smith LeBeau, Horgan, & Carter, 2006; Snodgrass, 1992; Snodgrass, Hecht, & Ploutz-Snyder, 1998), but not with real superiors and their subordinates – bear their own difficulty. In these paradigms, the expressivity of the person whose emotions are being assessed is a decisive factor. Given that high-power individuals are more expressive (Hall, Coats, & LeBeau, 2005), they might be easier to read, which would confound the association under study. To circumvent the expressivity problem, researchers present superiors and subordinates with the same standardized ERA test and then compare their scores. This is what we did in the present study. However, contrary to the aforementioned studies on actual superiors and subordinates, we did not ascertain the employees’ organizational rank and then assess the correlation between rank and ERA test score. Rather, we used pairs of superiors and subordinates who were in actual hierarchical relationships. The advantage of doing so was that we were able to control for the type of department and type of work of high- and low-ranking employees. For example, high-ranking people might be more typically involved in administration or management position, low-ranking people in production. These domains might confound analyses of the effect of status position, which would explain the heterogeneous results on ERA in actual hierarchies found in the literature. In production, there may be less interaction with people, so interpersonal skills cannot develop as much. By sampling hierarchical dyads who actually work together, we were able to control for some of these potential confounds. Moreover, we recruited dyads from different organizations in order to increase the external validity of our results. Again, by using actual hierarchical dyads, we were able to control for the sector of activity the superiors and subordinates worked in within the different companies. We predicted that superiors would show better ERA than their subordinates.

Method Participants A group of 142 superior-subordinate dyads of employees from different companies and organizations participated in the study (total N = 284). There was no remuneration for participation. Superiors were 58 women and 84 men (Mage = 43.74, SD = 7.77, range: 25 – 67); subordinates were 90

71

women and 52 men (Mage = 38.40, SD = 9.69, range: 21 – 61). Superiors and subordinates had a job activity level of on average 85% and 67%, respectively.

Procedure Superiors from different departments (e.g., HR, accounting) in various French-speaking Swiss companies and organizations were contacted by the students participating in a higher education program on HR management taught by the authors. Superiors who agreed to participate received two questionnaires, one for themselves and one for one of their direct subordinates. They were free to choose the subordinate to fill out the questionnaire. To ensure anonymity, superiors and subordinates received a stamped envelope addressed to the researchers along with their questionnaire. Superiors and subordinates each performed a paper-pencil ERA test and filled out a questionnaire reporting their age, sex, educational level, percentage of job activity, and years employed in the company. We assessed these variables in order to be able to control for them in our analyses. We chose them because they have been shown to be related to ERA. Older individuals have shown decreased ERA (Isaacowitz et al., 2007), women are generally more accurate at emotion recognition than men (Hall & Matsumoto, 2004), and educational level can be a proxy for general mental ability, which was related to ERA in some studies (O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011) and showed a link of r = .18 in a recent meta-analysis (Murphy & Hall, 2011). Additionally, we assessed control variables we suspected of being related to ERA in the context of the workplace (percentage of job activity and years employed in the company).

ERA Measure We used the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy – Adult Faces (DANVA-AF-2; Nowicki & Duke, 1994) to measure ERA. The DANVA-AF-2 consists of 24 pictures of adult faces, each depicting one of four emotions: fear, happiness, anger, or sadness. Each picture is shown for 2 s, after which the participant chooses one of four response options. Because we had to use a short paper-pencil questionnaire, there was no time restriction for the presentation of pictures. In order to compensate for this factor, which could have made the test easier, we only used the 12 lowintensity (of emotional expression) pictures of the DANVA-AF-2 to measure ERA (three pictures for each of the four emotions). The pictures were in black and white. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s α, which was found to be .32. Given the lack of time restriction for picture presentation, one might expect to observe a ceiling effect in the DANVA-AF-2 scores. However, there was none: On average, participants obtained a correct score on 75% of the pictures (SD = 14%). This is very close Swiss J. Psychol. 73 (2) © 2014 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

72

M. Schmid Mast & A. Darioly: Emotion Recognition Accuracy

to the norm provided for this age group, namely, an average score of 77% correct for the entire test. Note that the guessing level in the DANVA-AF-2 is 25%. Thus, there was no ceiling effect and enough variance to avoid a range restriction problem so that the correlations could be assessed.

Results The superiors and subordinates in our sample differed with respect to sex (dummy coded as 1 = female and 2 = male), t(282) = 3.89, p < .0001, superiors were more likely to be men than subordinates were; age, t(280) = 5.12, p < .0001, superiors were older than subordinates; level of education, t(265) = 6.32, p < .0001, superiors had a higher level of education than subordinates; and percentage of job activity, t(281) = 4.14, p < .0001, superiors had higher levels of job activity than subordinates. Superiors and subordinates did not, however, differ with respect to how many years they had worked in the current company, t(282) = 1.83, p = .10. The correlation between the DANVA-AF-2 scores of the superiors and the subordinates was not significant, r(142) = .11, p = 19, so we did not use repeated measure analyses. Many of the control variables were related to ERA as elaborated above (e.g., sex, age), so we calculated a multiple hierarchical regression analysis regressing ERA in a Table 1. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis for emotion recognition accuracy (ERA) Variables

B

SE B

β

Step 1 Constant

.921

.080

Sex (dummy coded, 1 = female, 2 = male)

–.003

.019

–.01

Age

–.003

.001

–.23***

.002

.006

.02

Educational level Percentage of job activity

–.001

.001

–.08

Years in company

.010

.007

.10

ΔR2

.04*

F

2.39*

Step 2 Constant

.999

Sex

–.007

.019

–.02

Age

–.004

.001

–.28****

Educational level

–.004

.001

–.04

Percentage of job activity

–.001

.001

–.12#

Years in company

.01

.007

.10

Status (dummy coded, 0 = subordinate, 1 = superior)

.049

.020

.18**

ΔR2

.02**

F change 6.08* Note. #p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, ****p < .0001. Swiss J. Psychol. 73 (2) © 2014 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

first step onto sex, age, educational level, percentage of job activity, and years employed in the company, and in a second step we added status (dummy coded as 1 = superior and 0 = subordinate). In this way we were able to check whether status was a significant predictor of ERA when controlling for the five aforementioned variables and whether status added incremental validity in predicting ERA above and beyond the five aforementioned variables. Table 1 lists the results. As expected, status was a significant predictor of ERA, showing that superiors were significantly better in ERA than their subordinates. Moreover, the addition of status explained significantly more variance in ERA than the five control variables did (i.e., the R2 change in Step 2 was significant). Note that, in both steps, age was a significantly negative predictor of ERA, meaning that the older the participant, the less well he or she did on the emotion recognition task. This result is in line with the literature (Isaacowitz et al., 2007).

Discussion We predicted and found that superiors have better ERA than their subordinates. This finding is in line with some of the existing research (Hall et al., 2013). The effect size (r = .18) appears to be relatively small (Cohen, 1977), but when considered in relation to the effect sizes typically obtained in this line of research (r = –.23 to .34; Hall et al., 2013), it no longer appears to be so small. The ability to correctly infer the emotions of others is related to transformational leadership (Rubin et al., 2005). This may mean that people with high ERA are particularly skilled at navigating the social world and earning a good reputation as leaders, which helps them to climb the corporate ladder. Alternatively (or additionally), the experience of being a superior and having power might increase a person’s ERA. Perhaps high-power individuals have better ERA because having a superior position makes them feel more positive and/or perceive things in a global way, and positive feelings and/or global information processing may increase ERA. Note, however, that we did not test these mechanisms in the present study; rather, we simply asked whether superiors or subordinates have better ERA. Moreover, the experience of being a superior might be responsible for increased ERA. Maybe the fact that one has to supervise and be directly responsible for others is the driving force behind increased ERA in the sense that it makes people in high-status positions more sensitive toward the emotions of others. Whether superiors have an advantage over subordinates in ERA because this skill was decisive for gaining their high-status position or whether attaining the high-status position and/or the experience of being a superior resulted in improvement in ERA (or both) remains an open question. In examining the ERA of superiors and subordinates who are in an actual hierarchical dyadic relationship, the

M. Schmid Mast & A. Darioly: Emotion Recognition Accuracy

present study goes beyond existing studies focusing on correlations between organizational rank of employees and ERA (Côté et al., 2011; Hall & Halberstadt, 1994). Because each superior recruited one of his/her direct subordinates, the power distance between superiors and subordinates was most likely relatively constant. Moreover, to a certain extent, this procedure does not take into account the absolute status level of the superior and the subordinate within the company or organization. It compared people with experience in supervising (the superiors) with people with experience in being supervised (the subordinates). We do not believe that the fact that the superior participants selected the subordinate participants affected the results. The superiors may have chosen a subordinate who thinks particularly highly of them, but there is no reason to assume that superiors systematically selected subordinates with low levels of ERA, let alone that superiors even knew their subordinates’ level of ERA. Our study did not assess the superiors’ accuracy in recognizing their subordinate’s emotions or vice versa. We used a standardized test of ERA that measures a person’s ability to correctly assess the emotions of others (but not necessarily of one’s interaction partner). This allowed us to measure each superior’s and subordinate’s ERA independent of the other’s expressiveness. Because more expressive individuals are easier to read, we excluded the possibility that the targets’ expressiveness and the perceivers’ ERA would be confounded (Hall et al., 2006; Snodgrass, 1992; Snodgrass et al., 1998). As a consequence, the finding suggests that superiors might be better than subordinates at reading emotions in general – not only the emotions of their subordinates, but also the emotions of their business partners and clients. This skill is important for being a good superior because it is related to better interaction outcomes (Byron, 2007; Elfenbein et al., 2007; Schmid Mast et al., 2012). How superior ERA affects the subordinates, apart from their being more satisfied with the superior and their interaction (Byron, 2007; Schmid Mast et al., 2012), remains largely unknown. Superiors who can accurately identify when one of their subordinates is sad or angry and take this into account during decision making (e.g., task attribution, task delegation) may have more effective teams and obtain better team performance. The latter assumption needs empirical testing. There is considerable individual variation among people in their levels of ERA. For superiors who possess low levels of accuracy in reading the emotions of others, training might help them to develop their skills (e.g., videotaped performances, role-playing sessions). Previous research demonstrated the success of training courses in improving people’s interpersonal and emotional skills (Costanzo, 1992; Taylor, 2002). Also, because ERA has been linked to increased transformational leadership (Rubin et al., 2005), training may affect how power manifests itself in the leadership behavior of the superior. Superiors with different leadership styles may differ in ERA. Research shows that, when power is operationalized as altruistic as opposed

73

to selfish, ERA is significantly better (Schmid Mast, Jonas, & Hall, 2009, Study 4). Transformational leaders may have better emotion recognition skills than transactional or laissez-faire leaders (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003). We used the DANVA-AF-2 (Nowicki & Duke, 1994), which does not cover the full spectrum of emotions and also does not cover all possible channels of emotion expression (i.e., body, voice, and face). We used the DANVAAF-2 because it is one of the most commonly used standardized tests, and because it and other emotion recognition accuracy tests have been shown to predict real-world outcomes (e.g., better sales, more satisfied patients, better negotiation outcomes; Byron et al., 2007; DiMatteo et al., 1980; Elfenbein et al., 2007). We used an abbreviated paper-pencil version of the DANVA-AF-2 (Nowicki & Duke, 1994), thus showing only half of the photos of the original version, and the photo presentation time was not limited to 2 s as in the original test. Although this is a degradation of the original test, and the internal consistency of this abbreviated version is low, the test scores of the abbreviated paper-pencil version were comparable to the norm data and our paper-pencil version. The internal consistency of emotion recognition and interpersonal sensitivity tests are typically very low (αs lower than .40 are not uncommon; Hall, 2001). Because internal consistency depends, among other things, on the number of items, tests with good internal consistency typically have many items (Hall, 2001). So reducing the length of the DANVA-AF-2 to half of the items may be one of the factors contributing to the low internal consistency. Another factor most likely is that the measured construct is not homogeneous. Note that the DANVA-AF-2 collapses over the recognition of four different emotions. Moreover, we only used the low-intensity stimuli because we did not restrict exposure time as in the original test. The low-intensity photos are harder to judge, which could be another factor contributing to the low internal consistency. One advantage of using the abbreviated version is that it can be used in an organizational setting quickly and effectively. This measure might be used as a more subtle assessment than self-report measures, such as the Social Skills Inventory (SSI; Riggio & Carney, 2003). In sum, our study shows that superiors have better ERA than their subordinates. Contrary to the often negative image superiors have of being corrupt or abusive, our study suggests that, in actual hierarchies, superiors are skilled in reading the emotions of others and research shows that this skill affects subordinates in a positive way (e.g., increases subordinate satisfaction; Schmid Mast et al., 2012). Whether this quality enables them to become superiors or whether they acquire it once they are in a leadership position remains open.

Acknowledgments We thank Judith Hall for her helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Swiss J. Psychol. 73 (2) © 2014 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

74

M. Schmid Mast & A. Darioly: Emotion Recognition Accuracy

References Ambady, N., & Gray, H. M. (2002). On being sad and mistaken: Mood effects on the accuracy of thin-slice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 947–961. doi 10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.947 Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207–218. doi 10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207 Berdahl, J. L., & Martorana, P. (2006). Effects of power on emotion and expression during a controversial group discussion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 497–509. doi 10.1002/ejsp.354 Berger, J., Wagner, D. G., & Zelditch, M. (1983). Expectation states theory: The status of a research program (Tech. rep. no. 90). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bombari, D., Schmid, P. C., Schmid Mast, M., Birri, S., Mast, F. W., & Lobmaier, J. S. (2013). Emotion recognition: The role of featural and configural face information. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi 10.1080/17470218.2013.789065 Byron, K. (2007). Male and female managers’ ability to read emotions: Relationships with supervisor’s performance ratings and subordinates’ satisfaction ratings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 713–733. doi 10.1348/ 096317907X174349 Byron, K., Terranova, S., & Nowicki, S. (2007). Nonverbal emotion recognition and salespersons: Linking ability to perceived and actual success. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 2600–2619. doi 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00272.x Chepenik, L. G., Cornew, L. A., & Farah, M. J. (2007). The influence of sad mood on cognition. Emotion, 7, 802–811. doi 10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.802 Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press. Costanzo, M. (1992). Training students to decode verbal and nonverbal cues: Effects on confidence and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 308–313. doi 10.1037/00220663.84.3.308 Côté, S., Kraus, M. W., Cheng, B. H., Oveis, C., van der Löwe, I., Lian, H., & Keltner, D. (2011). Social power facilitates the effect of prosocial orientation on empathic accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 217–232. doi 10.1037/ a0023171 DiMatteo, M. R., Hays, R. D., & Prince, L. M. (1986). Relationship of physicians’ nonverbal communication skills to patient satisfaction, appointment noncompliance, and physician workload. Health Psychology, 5, 581–594. doi 10.1037/0278-6133.5.6.581 DiMatteo, M. R., Taranta, A., Friedman, H. S., & Prince, L. M. (1980). Predicting patient satisfaction from physicians’ nonverbal communication skills. Medical Care, 18, 376–387. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3764191 Elfenbein, H. A., Foo, M. D., White, J. B., Tan, H. H., & Aik, V. C. (2007). Reading your counterpart: The benefit of emotion recognition ability for effectiveness in negotiation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31, 205–223. doi 10.1007/s10919-007-0033-7 Ellyson, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1985). Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior: Basic concepts and issues. In S. L. Ellyson Swiss J. Psychol. 73 (2) © 2014 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

& J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior (pp. 1–27). New York: Springer-Verlag. doi 10.1007/978-1-4612-5106-4_1 Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–74). New York: Academic Press. Goodwin, S. A., Gubin, A., Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2000). Power can bias impression processes: Stereotyping subordinates by default and by design. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3, 227–256. doi 10.1177/1368430200003003001 Hall, J. A. (2001). The PONS Test and the psychometric approach to measuring interpersonal sensitivity. In J. A. Hall & F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 143–160). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 898–924. doi 10.1037/00332909.131.6.898 Hall, J. A., & Halberstadt, A. G. (1994). “Subordination” and sensitivity to nonverbal cues: A study of married working women. Sex Roles, 31, 149–165. doi 10.1007/BF01547712 Hall, J. A., & Matsumoto, D. (2004). Gender differences in judgments of multiple emotions from facial expressions. Emotion, 4, 201–206. doi 10.1037/1528-3542.4.2.201 Hall, J. A., Rosip, J. C., Smith LeBeau, L., Horgan, T. G., & Carter, J. D. (2006). Attributing the sources of accuracy in unequal-power dyadic communication: Who is better and why? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 18–27. doi 10.1016/j.jesp. 2005.01.005 Hall, J. A., Schmid Mast, M., & Latu, I. M. (2013). Power and accurate interpersonal perception. Manuscript submitted for publication. Isaacowitz, D. M., Loeckenhoff, C., Wright, R., Sechrest, L., Riedel, R., Lane, R. A., & Costa, P. T. (2007). Age differences in recognition of emotion in lexical stimuli and facial expressions. Psychology and Aging, 22, 147–159. doi 10.1037/08827974.22.1.147 Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284. doi 10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265 Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–425. doi 10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90027-2 Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Manual for the MSCEIT (Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test). Toronto, Canada: MultiHealth Systems. Murphy, N. A., & Hall, J. A. (2011). Intelligence and interpersonal sensitivity: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 39, 54–63. doi 10.1016/j.intell.2010.10.001 Nowicki, S., Jr., & Duke, M. P. (1994). Individual differences in the nonverbal communication of affect: The Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy Scale. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 9–35. doi 10.1007/BF02169077 O’Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011). The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 788–818. doi 10.1002/job.714

M. Schmid Mast & A. Darioly: Emotion Recognition Accuracy

Patterson, S. L., Baker, M., & Maeck, J. P. (1993). Durable powers of attorney: Issues of gender and health care decision-making. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 21, 161–177. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable relevant to social roles and intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. doi 10.1037/00223514.67.4.741 Riggio, R. E., & Carney, D. C. (2003). Manual for the Social Skills Inventory (2nd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mind Garden. Rosenthal, R., Hall, J. A., DiMatteo, M. R., Rogers, P. L., & Archer, D. (1979). Sensitivity to nonverbal communication: The PONS Test. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. (2005). Leading from within: The effects of emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 845–858. doi 10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803926 Scherer, K. R., & Scherer, U. (2011). Assessing the ability to recognize facial and vocal expressions of emotion: Construction and validation of the emotion recognition index. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 35, 305–326. doi 10.1007/s10919-011-0115-4 Schmid, P. C., & Schmid Mast, M. (2013). A meta-analysis on how power relates to cognitive information processing. Manuscript submitted for publication. Schmid Mast, M. (2010). Interpersonal behavior and social perception in a hierarchy: The interpersonal power and behavior model. European Review of Social Psychology, 21, 1–33. doi 10.1080/10463283.2010.486942 Schmid Mast, M., Jonas, K., & Hall, J. A. (2009). Give a person power and he or she will show interpersonal sensitivity: The phenomenon and its why and when. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 851–865. doi 10.1037/a0016234 Schmid Mast, M., Jonas, K., Klöckner Cronauer, C., & Darioly, A. (2012). On the importance of the superior’s interpersonal sensi-

75

tivity for good leadership. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 1043–1068. doi 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00852.x Schroeder, J. E. (1995). Self-concept, social anxiety, and interpersonal skills. Personal Individual Differences, 19, 955–958. doi 10.1016/S0191-8869(95)00108-5 Sherif, M., White, B. J., & Harvey, O. J. (1955). Status in experimentally produced groups. American Journal of Sociology, 60, 370–379. doi 10.1086/221569 Snodgrass, S. E. (1992). Further effects of role versus gender on interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 154–158. doi 10.1037/0022-3514.62.1.154 Snodgrass, S. E., Hecht, M. A., & Ploutz-Snyder, R. (1998). Interpersonal sensitivity: Expressivity or perceptivity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 238–249. doi 10.1037/00223514.74.1.238 Taylor, S. J. (2002). Effects of a nonverbal skills training program on perceptions of personal charisma. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Riverside, CA. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463. doi 10.1037/a0018963

Marianne Schmid Mast Department of Work and Organizational Psychology University of Neuchatel Rue Emile-Argand 11 2000 Neuchatel Switzerland Tel. +41 32 718 13 94 Fax +41 32 718 13 91 [email protected]

Swiss J. Psychol. 73 (2) © 2014 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern