#essay
Gina44
7.pdf
Psychological Science 2016, Vol. 27(1) 119 –122 © The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0956797615616255 pss.sagepub.com
Short Report
Knowledge of social rules helps people engage in socially intelligent behavior (Argyle & Kendon, 1967; Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1987; Lopes et al., 2004), but social knowledge alone is not enough. For example, even when they under- stand the social demands, people put their foot in their mouth if their dominant response to a situation is socially inappropriate and they have poor inhibitory control (von Hippel & Gonsalkorale, 2005). Consequently, research in social intelligence has also examined capacities that are thought to underlie socially intelligent responding. Some of these capacities are specifically social, such as the abil- ity to read emotions in people’s eyes (Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, Raste, & Plumb, 2001), whereas others are general capacities that facilitate social functioning, such as the ability to detect changing contingencies (Ronay & von Hippel, 2015) or inhibit dominant responses (von Hippel & Dunlop, 2005). In the current article we focus on one such general capacity—mental speed—and examine whether it is associated with social functioning.
Mental speed is important in most conceptualizations of general intelligence (Sheppard & Vernon, 2008), but it also has the potential to play a role in social intelligence. For example, mental speed allows people to judge situational demands rapidly, consider a wide repertoire of responses within a socially appropriate response window, mask inappropriate initial reactions by rapidly presenting a non- dominant response, and make time-sensitive humorous associations. These capacities could enable a person to be socially sensitive and charismatic. If mental speed plays such a role, then it should predict social skills and cha- risma, and this relationship should be independent of gen- eral intelligence and personality differences. The goal of the current research was to test this possibility.
Method
Study 1
We attempted to recruit 200 participants to have sufficient power to detect a small to moderate effect size, but in
recruiting groups of friends on campus, we ended up with 199 fluent English speakers (105 female).
Intelligence. Participants were administered the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (2011) by pro- visionally registered clinical psychologists under the supervision of a registered clinical neuropsychologist. Participants’ mean score was 115 (SD = 10).
Mental speed. Participants answered 30 common- knowledge questions (e.g., “name a precious gem”) as rapidly as possible. Participants heard the questions via headphones and answered through a microphone, with their voice latencies recorded by computer.
Charisma and social skills. Participants rated each member of their friendship group on a three-item cha- risma scale and a three-item social-skill scale (see Table 1).
Personality. Participants completed the NEO-Five Fac- tor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 2003).
Study 2
We attempted to recruit 200 participants to match Study 1, but in recruiting groups of friends, we ended up with 218 fluent English speakers (124 female).
Mental speed. In addition to answering the speeded common-knowledge questions of Study 1, participants completed a 60-item speeded left/right test in which they reported on which side of the computer screen a dot appeared, and a 30-item speeded pattern-matching test in which they reported whether paired patterns were the
616255PSSXXX10.1177/0956797615616255von Hippel et al.Speed and Charisma research-article2015
Corresponding Author: William von Hippel, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072 Australia E-mail: [email protected]
Quick Thinkers Are Smooth Talkers: Mental Speed Facilitates Charisma
William von Hippel1, Richard Ronay2, Ernest Baker1, Kathleen Kjelsaas1, and Sean C. Murphy1 1School of Psychology, University of Queensland, and 2Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Received 6/19/15; Revision accepted 10/16/15
120
T a b le
1 .
R e su
lt s
fo r
th e M
ix e d -E
ff e ct
s M
o d e ls
P re
d ic
ti n g C
h ar
is m
a an
d S
o ci
al S
k il ls
St u d y 1
St u d y 2
M
o d e ls
p re
d ic
ti n g c
h ar
is m
a M
o d e ls
p re
d ic
ti n g s
o ci
al s
k il ls
M o d e ls
p re
d ic
ti n g c
h ar
is m
a M
o d e ls
p re
d ic
ti n g s
o ci
al s
k il ls
P re
d ic
to r
B iv
ar ia
te
re la
ti o n sh
ip s
(n
o c
o n tr o ls
)
M u lt iv
ar ia
te
re la
ti o n sh
ip s
(a
ll c
o n tr o ls
)
B iv
ar ia
te
re la
ti o n sh
ip s
(n
o c
o n tr o ls
)
M u lt iv
ar ia
te
re la
ti o n sh
ip s
(a
ll c
o n tr o ls
)
B iv
ar ia
te
re la
ti o n sh
ip s
(n
o c
o n tr o ls
)
M u lt iv
ar ia
te
re la
ti o n sh
ip s
(a
ll c
o n tr o ls
)
B iv
ar ia
te
re la
ti o n sh
ip s
(n
o c
o n tr o ls
)
M u lt iv
ar ia
te
re la
ti o n sh
ip s
(a
ll c
o n tr o ls
)
R e sp
o n se
t im
e —
— —
— —
— —
—
C o m
m o n -k
n o w
le d g e
te st
[– 0 .2
6 7 , –0
.0 9 9 ]
[– 0 .2
5 4 , –0
.0 6 8 ]
[– 0 .2
0 0 , 0 .0
3 8 ]
[– 0 .2
5 0 , –0
.0 0 0 2 ]
[– 0 .1
8 6 , –0
.0 1 5 ]
[– 0 .1
8 0 , –0
.0 0 0 4 ]
[– 0 .0
8 7 , 0 .1
0 9 ]
[– 0 .1
1 3 , 0 .0
6 9 ]
P at
te rn
-m at
ch in
g t e st
— —
— —
[– 0 .1
7 2 , 0 .0
0 2 ]
[– 0 .1
8 2 , 0 .0
0 2 ]
[– 0 .0
6 6 , 0 .1
3 3 ]
[– 0 .0
7 3 , 0 .1
1 4 ]
Le
ft /r
ig h t te
st —
— —
— [–
0 .1
1 4 , 0 .0
5 2 ]
[– 0 .1
1 7 , 0 .0
5 6 ]
[– 0 .1
1 9 , 0 .0
6 9 ]
[– 0 .1
0 8 , 0 .0
6 7 ]
A
v e ra
g e
— —
— —
[– 0 .2
5 0 , –0
.0 1 8 ]
[– 0 .2
5 7 , –0
.0 1 0 ]
[– 0 .1
2 3 , 0 .1
4 3 ]
[– 0 .1
4 2 , 0 .1
1 0 ]
C o n tr o l v ar
ia b le
s —
— —
— —
— —
—
E x tr av
e rs
io n
[– 0 .0
5 1 , 0 .1
4 1 ]
[– 0 .0
8 9 , 0 .1
1 0 ]
[0 .0
8 5 , 0 .3
3 4 ]
[0 .0
4 1 , 0 .3
0 6 ]
[– 0 .0
8 1 , 0 .2
0 8 ]
[– 0 .2
5 8 , 0 .1
6 2 ]
[0 .2
0 5 , 0 .5
1 8 ]
[– 0 .1
4 8 , 0 .2
7 4 ]
O
p e n n e ss
[0 .0
3 9 , 0 .2
1 9 ]
[0 .0
4 5 , 0 .2
3 1 ]
[– 0 .0
0 1 , 0 .2
4 0 ]
[– 0 .0
3 9 , 0 .2
1 0 ]
[– 0 .0
5 1 , 0 .2
5 3 ]
[– 0 .1
1 8 , 0 .2
3 0 ]
[– 0 .0
9 0 , 0 .2
5 7 ]
[– 0 .2
0 1 , 0 .1
4 9 ]
A
g re
e ab
le n e ss
[– 0 .1
8 8 , –0
.0 0 2 ]
[– 0 .2
0 7 , –0
.0 1 9 ]
[– 0 .0
2 6 , 0 .2
2 2 ]
[– 0 .0
5 0 , 0 .2
0 1 ]
[– 0 .2
3 1 , 0 .0
9 8 ]
[– 0 .3
2 5 , 0 .1
3 2 ]
[0 .2
2 8 , 0 .5
8 7 ]
[– 0 .0
8 1 , 0 .3
7 8 ]
C o n sc
ie n ti o u sn
e ss
[– 0 .0
9 2 , 0 .0
9 6 ]
[– 0 .0
8 0 , 0 .1
1 1 ]
[– 0 .1
2 5 , 0 .1
2 3 ]
[– 0 .1
5 4 , 0 .1
0 1 ]
[– 0 .1
8 0 , 0 .1
1 1 ]
[– 0 .2
6 0 , 0 .1
7 7 ]
[0 .1
5 1 , 0 .4
7 1 ]
[– 0 .1
4 6 , 0 .2
9 1 ]
N
e u ro
ti ci
sm [–
0 .1
2 4 , 0 .0
7 2 ]
[– 0 .1
4 5 , 0 .0
5 9 ]
[– 0 .2
2 9 , 0 .0
3 1 ]
[– 0 .2
1 7 , 0 .0
5 4 ]
[– 0 .1
5 6 , 0 .0
8 0 ]
[– 0 .1
9 2 , 0 .1
2 0 ]
[– 0 .3
5 4 , –0
.0 9 1 ]
[– 0 .1
7 5 , 0 .1
3 9 ]
IQ
[0 .0
0 1 , 0 .0
1 7 ]
[– 0 .0
0 1 , 0 .0
1 8 ]
[– 0 .0
0 8 , 0 .0
1 5 ]
[– 0 .0
1 3 , 0 .0
1 2 ]
— —
— —
C o n fi d e n ce
— —
— —
[– 0 .0
1 0 , 0 .1
3 8 ]
[– 0 .0
2 3 , 0 .2
0 3 ]
[0 .1
2 9 , 0 .2
8 7 ]
[0 .1
0 0 , 0 .3
2 6 ]
E m
o ti o n al
e x p re
ss iv
e n e ss
— —
— —
[– 0 .0
6 7 , 0 .1
3 0 ]
[– 0 .0
6 0 , 0 .1
6 9 ]
[– 0 .0
1 8 , 0 .2
0 1 ]
[– 0 .1
0 3 , 0 .1
2 6 ]
G
e n e ra
l k n o w
le d g e
— —
— —
[– 0 .0
1 5 , 0 .0
3 7 ]
[– 0 .0
2 0 , 0 .0
3 8 ]
[– 0 .0
6 4 , –0
.0 0 7 ]
[– 0 .0
5 0 , 0 .0
0 7 ]
P e rs
p e ct
iv e t ak
in g
— —
— —
[– 0 .0
8 6 , 0 .1
8 0 ]
[– 0 .0
8 4 , 0 .2
3 7 ]
[0 .1
6 5 , 0 .4
5 1 ]
[– 0 .0
2 6 , 0 .2
9 7 ]
Se
lf -e
ff ic
ac y
— —
— —
[– 0 .1
2 9 , 0 .1
5 7 ]
[– 0 .2
5 6 , 0 .1
2 7 ]
[– 0 .0
2 6 , 0 .2
9 4 ]
[– 0 .2
6 6 , 0 .1
1 7 ]
Se
lf -c
o n tr o l
— —
— —
[– 0 .1
0 2 , 0 .1
9 3 ]
[– 0 .1
5 1 , 0 .2
7 1 ]
[– 0 .5
0 3 , –0
.1 8 3 ]
[– 0 .2
9 1 , 0 .1
3 4 ]
So
ci al
v al
u e o
ri e n ta
ti o n
— —
— —
[– 0 .0
2 3 , 0 .0
2 0 ]
[– 0 .0
2 0 , 0 .0
2 6 ]
[0 .0
1 0 , 0 .0
5 8 ]
[0 .0
0 2 , 0 .0
4 8 ]
N
ar ci
ss is
m —
— —
— [–
0 .1
7 6 , 0 .7
0 2 ]
[– 0 .5
1 4 , 0 .6
5 9 ]
[– 0 .5
8 5 , 0 .4
0 8 ]
[– 1 .0
0 9 , 0 .1
7 2 ]
N o te
: T h e t ab
le p
re se
n ts
t h e 9
5 %
c o n fi d e n ce
i n te
rv al
s fo
r u n st
an d ar
d iz
e d r
e g re
ss io
n c
o e ff ic
ie n ts
; co
n fi d e n ce
i n te
rv al
s th
at d
o n
o t in
cl u d e z
e ro
a re
i n b
o ld
fa ce
. A ll v
ar ia
b le
s w
e re
g ra
n d -m
e an
-c e n te
re d
b e fo
re t h e m
o d e ls
w e re
r u n , as
r e co
m m
e n d e d b
y H
o x (
2 0 1 0 ). I n b
o th
S tu
d y 1
a n d S
tu d y 2
, p ar
ti ci
p an
ts ’ ra
ti n g s
o f h o w
c h ar
is m
at ic
, fu
n n y , an
d q
u ic
k -w
it te
d t h e ir f ri e n d s
w e re
c o n st
it u te
t h e m
e as
u re
o f ch
ar is
m a.
I n S
tu d y 1
, th
e m
e as
u re
o f so
ci al
s k il l w
as c
o m
p o se
d o
f p ar
ti ci
p an
ts ’ ra
ti n g s
o f th
e e
x te
n t to
w h ic
h t h e ir f ri e n d s
w e re
g o o d a
t h an
d li n g c
o n fl ic
t, c
o m
fo rt ab
le i n a
w id
e r
an g e o
f so
ci al
se
tt in
g s,
a n d g
o o d a
t in
te rp
re ti n g f e e li n g s.
I n S
tu d y 2
, th
e m
e as
u re
o f so
ci al
s k il ls
i n cl
u d e d t h e s
am e t h re
e i te
m s
p lu
s p ar
ti ci
p an
ts ’ ra
ti n g s
o f th
e e
x te
n t to
w h ic
h t h e ir f ri e n d s
p u t p e o p le
a t e as
e , w
e re
so
ci al
ly s
k il le
d , an
d g
o t al
o n g w
it h e
v e ry
o n e . M
u lt il e v e l e q u at
io n s
fo r
th e m
o d e ls
i n t h is
t ab
le a
re p
re se
n te
d i n t h e S
u p p le
m e n ta
l M
at e ri al
. In
b o th
s tu
d ie
s, w
e r
e m
o v e d f ro
m a
ll s
p e e d a
n al
y se
s an
y
p ar
ti ci
p an
t w
h o s
co re
d m
o re
t h an
4 S
D a
w ay
f ro
m t h e m
e an
o n a
n y r
e sp
o n se
t im
e m
e as
u re
( 1 p
ar ti ci
p an
t fr o m
S tu
d y 1
, 4 p
ar ti ci
p an
ts f ro
m S
tu d y 2
).
Speed and Charisma 121
same or different (Salthouse & Babcock, 1991). Perfor- mance (i.e., response time) on these measures was inter- correlated, as expected: speeded common-knowledge questions with the speeded left/right test, r = .22; speeded common knowledge questions with the speeded pattern- matching test, r = .28; and speeded left/right test with the speeded pattern-matching test, r = .42; all ps < .01. Per- formance was averaged to form a composite measure of mental speed. The measures were also analyzed individually.
Charisma and social skills. Participants rated each of their friends on the three-item charisma scale used in Study 1 and an expanded six-item social-skill measure (see Table 1).
Individual differences. Participants completed the NEO-Five Factor Inventory, the Brief Self-Control Scale (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004), the Perspective Taking subscale of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1983), the New General Self-Efficacy Scale (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001), the Narcissistic Personality Inven- tory (Raskin & Hall, 1979), the Berkeley Expressivity Questionnaire (Gross & John, 1997) to measure emo- tional expressivity, the Social Value Orientation Scale (Van Lange, Otten, De Bruin, & Joireman, 1997) to mea- sure altruistic interpersonal orientation, a test of general knowledge (Murphy et al., 2015), and a self-confidence test (Lee, Kulbe, & Zietsch, 2015). See Tables S2 and S3 in the Supplemental Material available online for reliability coefficients and correlations among the predictor variables.
Results
To assess whether mental speed predicted peer-reported charisma and social skills, we used the lme4 package (Bates & Sarkar, 2014) for the R software environment (R Development Core Team, 2015) to fit linear mixed-effects (multilevel) models to the data (see Multilevel Equations in the Supplemental Material). We tested the fixed effect of each predictor on its own and then in combination with the individual difference measures as controls; in both cases, we included random effects of the target, rater, and friend- ship group on the intercept. Confidence intervals for each predictor were computed using Wald tests. Table 1 shows that in both studies, mental speed predicted charisma on its own and with the other predictors in the model. Table S1 in the Supplemental Material shows that mental speed also predicted peer ratings of the three individual charisma items in both studies. Thus, it seems that the effect of mental speed on charisma is independent of IQ, general knowl- edge, and the various personality measures. Unexpectedly, mental speed did not reliably predict either the three-item
or the six-item social skill scales, on its own or with the control variables.
Discussion
Participants who were able to answer common-knowledge questions more rapidly and to respond more rapidly in gen- eral were evaluated by their peers as being more charis- matic than participants who responded more slowly. These findings are consistent with the notion that mental speed facilitates social functioning. This effect was independent of IQ, general knowledge, and various personality measures, which suggests that speed per se enables charismatic behav- ior. Contrary to predictions, mental speed did not correlate with other indicators of social skills. It remains a question for future research exactly how mental speed facilitates charismatic behavior, but access to a wider repertoire of social responses within an appropriate response window would seem to be a likely candidate. Given the centrality of charisma in leadership effectiveness (Avolio & Yammarino, 2013) and the fact that mental speed played a clearer role in charisma than was played by either intelligence or personal- ity, the current research suggests that mental speed may well be an important and understudied component of inter- personal effectiveness.
Author Contributions
W. von Hippel and R. Ronay developed the hypothesis and research plan. E. Baker, K. Kjelsaas, and S. C. Murphy devel- oped the research materials. E. Baker and K. Kjelsaas conducted the research. S. C. Murphy analyzed the data. W. von Hippel, R. Ronay, and S. C. Murphy wrote the manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.
Supplemental Material
Additional supporting information can be found at http://pss .sagepub.com/content/by/supplemental-data
Open Practices
All data have been made publicly available via Open Science Framework; the data can be accessed at https://osf.io/cbjps/. All of the materials except the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence can be accessed at https://osf.io/h5cn3/. The com- plete Open Practices Disclosure for this article can be found at http://pss.sagepub.com/content/by/supplemental-data. This article has received the badge for Open Data. More informa- tion about the Open Practices badges can be found at https:// osf.io/tvyxz/wiki/1.%20View%20the%20Badges/ and http://pss .sagepub.com/content/25/1/3.full.
122 von Hippel et al.
References
Argyle, M., & Kendon, A. (1967). The experimental analysis of social performance. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 55–98). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2013). Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (2nd ed.). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001). The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger Syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 241–251.
Bates, D., & Sarkar, D. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects mod- els using S4 classes (Version 1.1-5) [Software]. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). Personality and social intelligence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62–83.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2003). The NEO Inventories: NEO Five Factor Inventory-3. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empa- thy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.
Gross, J., & John, O. (1997). Revealing feelings: Facets of emotional expressivity in self-reports, peer ratings, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 435–448.
Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applica- tions (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lee, A. J., Kulbe, G., & Zietsch, B. P. (2015). Self-confidence and attractiveness in speed-dating and online dating pro- files. Unpublished manuscript, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.
Lopes, P. N., Brackett, M. A., Nezlek, J., Schutz, A., Sellin, I., & Salovey, P. (2004). Emotional intelligence and social interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1018–1034.
Murphy, S. C., von Hippel, W., Dubbs, S. L., Angilletta, M. J., Jr., Wilson, R. S., Trivers, R., & Barlow, F. K. (2015). The role of overconfidence in romantic desirability and competition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1036–1052.
Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45, 590.
R Development Core Team. (2015). R: A language and envi- ronment for statistical computing (Version 3.2.2) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://www.r-project.org/index .html
Ronay, R., & von Hippel, W. (2015). Sensitivity to changing contingencies predicts social success. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 6, 23–30.
Salthouse, T. A., & Babcock, R. L. (1991). Decomposing adult age differences in working memory. Developmental Psychology, 27, 763–776.
Sheppard, L. D., & Vernon, P. A. (2008). Intelligence and speed of information processing: A review of 50 years of research. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 535–551.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–324.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Otten, W., De Bruin, E. M. N., & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 733–746.
von Hippel, W., & Dunlop, S. M. (2005). Aging, inhibition, and social inappropriateness. Psychology and Aging, 20, 519–523.
von Hippel, W., & Gonsalkorale, K. (2005). “That is bloody revolting!” Inhibitory control of thoughts better left unsaid. Psychological Science, 16, 497–500.
Wechsler, D. (2011). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
