Publicação
Relational complementarity: the motivational form of social relationships
| Resumo: | What motivates people to engage in coordinated social interactions? Building on relational models theory, and on philosophical and psychological accounts of joint action, I propose that all forms of coordination require participants to generate actions that are congruent with the actions of the partners, according to shared cognitive relational models. When the actions of all interacting participants fit together, they create a pattern of Relational Complementarity (RelComp). Hence, RelComp is the goal intrinsic to all forms of coordination. Building on this conceptualization, this thesis addresses two theoretical hypotheses. First, RelComp is inherently satisfying; the prospect of RelComp is sufficient to motivate behavior in the absence of rewards ulterior to coordination. Four studies tested whether participants primed with RelComp as a goal (vs. non-primed) would be more motivated to follow the instructions of an experimenter, and therefore, would spend more effort to complete the tasks requested during the experimental session. The results did not support the hypothesis that RelComp motivates social behavior. However, a second unrelated line of five studies demonstrated that RelComp is satisfying, by showing that participants experienced more positive affect in complementary (vs. non-complementary) interactions. The second theoretical hypothesis states that, since RelComp is intrinsic to coordination, it is sufficient to fulfill the motives that have been proposed to explain coordinated behavior. Five studies showed that participants experienced higher control, belonging and trust in complementary (vs. non-complementary) interactions, and that these effects could not be explained by expectations about the partner’s actions, nor by the benefits of coordination. |
|---|---|
| Autores principais: | Costa, Nuno Patrício Varandas da |
| Assunto: | Social coordination Social interactions Relational models Motivation Belonging Control Trust Psicologia social Interação social Modelo relacional Controlo de processos Motivação Emoção Afeto Portugal |
| Ano: | 2018 |
| País: | Portugal |
| Tipo de documento: | tese de doutoramento |
| Tipo de acesso: | acesso aberto |
| Instituição associada: | ISCTE |
| Idioma: | inglês |
| Origem: | Repositório ISCTE |
| Resumo: | What motivates people to engage in coordinated social interactions? Building on relational models theory, and on philosophical and psychological accounts of joint action, I propose that all forms of coordination require participants to generate actions that are congruent with the actions of the partners, according to shared cognitive relational models. When the actions of all interacting participants fit together, they create a pattern of Relational Complementarity (RelComp). Hence, RelComp is the goal intrinsic to all forms of coordination. Building on this conceptualization, this thesis addresses two theoretical hypotheses. First, RelComp is inherently satisfying; the prospect of RelComp is sufficient to motivate behavior in the absence of rewards ulterior to coordination. Four studies tested whether participants primed with RelComp as a goal (vs. non-primed) would be more motivated to follow the instructions of an experimenter, and therefore, would spend more effort to complete the tasks requested during the experimental session. The results did not support the hypothesis that RelComp motivates social behavior. However, a second unrelated line of five studies demonstrated that RelComp is satisfying, by showing that participants experienced more positive affect in complementary (vs. non-complementary) interactions. The second theoretical hypothesis states that, since RelComp is intrinsic to coordination, it is sufficient to fulfill the motives that have been proposed to explain coordinated behavior. Five studies showed that participants experienced higher control, belonging and trust in complementary (vs. non-complementary) interactions, and that these effects could not be explained by expectations about the partner’s actions, nor by the benefits of coordination. |
|---|