The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How do people think about interdependence? A multidimensional model of subjective outcome interdependence.
Open accessAbstract
Interdependence is a fundamental characteristic of social interactions. Interdependence Theory states that 6 dimensions describe differences between social situations. Here we examine if these 6 dimensions describe how people think about their interdependence with others in a situation. We find that people (in situ and ex situ) can reliably differentiate situations according to 5, but not 6, dimensions of interdependence: (a) mutual dependence, (b) power, (c) conflict, (d) future interdependence, and (e) information certainty. This model offers a unique framework for understanding how people think about social situations compared to another recent model of situation construal (DIAMONDS). Furthermore, we examine factors that are theorized to shape perceptions of interdependence, such as situational cues (e.g., nonverbal behavior) and personality (e.g., HEXACO and Social Value Orientation). We also study the implications of subjective interdependence for emotions and cooperative behavior during social interactions. This model of subjective interdependence explains substantial variation in the emotions people experience in situations (i.e., happiness, sadness, anger, and disgust), and explains 24% of the variance in cooperation, above and beyond the DIAMONDS model. Throughout these studies, we develop and validate a multidimensional measure of subjective outcome interdependence that can be used in diverse situations and relationships-the Situational Interdependence Scale (SIS). We discuss how this model of interdependence can be used to better understand how people think about social situations encountered in close relationships, organizations, and society. (PsycINFO Database Record
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.40.3.879 · Cited by 34,117
Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008) · Dublin Institute of Technology · doi:10.21427/d7cf7r · Cited by 8,746
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2 · Cited by 6,691
Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309 · Cited by 6,567
Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596 · Cited by 5,157
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.246 · Cited by 3,889
Power, approach, and inhibition.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.110.2.265 · Cited by 3,427
A Review of Scale Development Practices in the Study of Organizations
Hinkin, T. R. (1995) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639502100509 · Cited by 3,193
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95 · Cited by 3,146
Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741 · Cited by 3,071 · cited 1×
“Additionally, situations that contain corresponding interests can lead people to cooperate both within and between groups (Bornstein, 2003; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003).”
BackgroundRelation of sample size to the stability of component patterns.
Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.265 · Cited by 2,880
Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009 · Cited by 1,662
Measuring Social Value Orientation
Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A., & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2011) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500004204 · Cited by 948
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90037-t · Cited by 807
Global Judgments of Subjective Well-Being: Situational Variability and Long-Term Stability
Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2004) · Social Indicators Research · doi:10.1023/b:soci.0000003801.89195.bc · Cited by 714
The social distance theory of power
Magee, J. C., & Smith, P. K. (2013) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868312472732 · Cited by 620
Intraindividual variability in affect: Reliability, validity, and personality correlates.
Eid, M., & Diener, E. (1999) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.662 · Cited by 571
The rhythm of joint action: synchrony promotes cooperative ability.
Valdesolo, P., Ouyang, J., & DeSteno, D. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.03.004 · Cited by 521
Inequality, communication, and the avoidance of disastrous climate change in a public goods game
Tavoni, A., Dannenberg, A., Kallis, G., & Löschel, A. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1102493108 · Cited by 497
Power, Distress, and Compassion: Turning a Blind Eye to the Suffering of Others
van Kleef, G. A., Oveis, C., van der Löwe, I., LuoKogan, A., Goetz, J., & Keltner, D. (2008) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02241.x · Cited by 482
Social perception and social reality: A reflection-construction model.
Jussim, L. (1991) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.98.1.54 · Cited by 446 · cited 1×
“We take the position that an ability to infer situational interdependence should be anchored in the objective properties of interdependence that people face on a daily basis (see Funder, 2009; Jussim, 1991; Rauthmann et al., 2014; McArthur & Baron, 1983).”
BackgroundSelf-construal predicts environmental concern, cooperation, and conservation
Arnocky, S., Stroink, M., & DeCicco, T. (2007) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.005 · Cited by 221
On the robustness and possible accounts of ambiguity aversion
Keren, G., & Gerritsen, L. E. M. (1999) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/s0001-6918(99)00034-7 · Cited by 165 · cited 1×
“Third, because people tend to avoid ambiguity (Keren & Gerritsen, 1999), less information certainty is likely to be present in situations characterized by greater negativity and less positivity.”
Background
Cited by
Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis.
Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000217 · Cited by 689
Self-citationWu, J., Balliet, D., Peperkoorn, L. S., Romano, A., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02956 · Cited by 156
Self-citationHorstmann, K. T., Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., & Ziegler, M. (2021) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000357 · Cited by 89
Vitamin S: why is social contact, even with strangers, so important to well-being?
Van Lange, P. A. M., & Columbus, S. (2021) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/09637214211002538 · Cited by 81
Individual differences in contingencies between situation characteristics and personality states.
Kuper, N., Breil, S. M., Horstmann, K. T., Roemer, L., Lischetzke, T., Sherman, R. A., Back, M. D., Denissen, J. J. A., & Rauthmann, J. F. (2022) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000435 · Cited by 63
Metadata
- Authors
- Gerpott, F. H., Balliet, D., Columbus, S., Molho, C., & de Vries, R. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 2018-10
- Volume
- 115
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 716-742
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2751386010
- Cited by
- 202
- References
- 23
- FWCI
- 54.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
