Alle Publikationen
- <<
- <
- 1
2004
-
(2004): Was ist machiavellische Intelligenz? Betrachtungen über eine wenig beachtete Seite unserer Psyche. In: Der Nervenarzt 75 (1), S. 1-5. DOI: 10.1007/s00115-003-1543-0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-003-1543-0 Abstract: Aus ethologischer und evolutionspsychologischer Forschung geht immer deutlicher hervor, dass Intelligenz keine monolithische Funktionseinheit ist, sondern eine Reihe von Spezialfunktionen zur Lebensbewältigung umfasst, welche zum Teil sogar unterschiedliche evolutionäre Wurzeln aufweisen. Eine dieser Unterformen wird in Anlehnung an den italienischen Politiker und Schriftsteller aus dem 15. bzw. 16. Jahrhundert, Niccolo Machiavelli, "machiavellische Intelligenz" genannt. Sie ermöglicht soziale Manipulation im Dienste egoistischer Zielerreichung. Damit wird sie zur fassbaren psychologischen Grundlage der Machtausübung in sozialen Verbänden. Machiavellische Intelligenz kann sowohl bei höheren Primaten wie auch beim Menschen beobachtet und evaluiert, bei letzterem sogar gemessen werden.
Keywords: concept of Machiavellian intelligence, evidence from ethological & evolutionary psychological research, Evolution, Evolutionary Psychology, Evolutionspsychologie, Individual Differences, Individuelle Unterschiede, Intelligence, Intelligenz, Interpersonal Influences, Interpersonale Einflüsse, Machiavellianism, Machiavellismus, Macht, Personality Traits & Processes, Persönlichkeitseigenschaften und Persönlichkeitsprozesse, Persuasive Communication, Persuasive Kommunikation, POWER, social manipulation skills & egotism & power in social groups, Soziale Intelligenz 2000
-
(2000): The efficacy of communicative fairness and rhetorical aesthetics in contributions to argumentation. In: Language and speech 43 (Pt 3), S. 229-259. DOI: 10.1177/00238309000430030101
DOI: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/language/ Abstract: This paper deals with the effects of aesthetic quality and argumentational integrity or fairness on the persuasiveness of contributions to argumentation. Contemporary discussions of aesthetics and morality distinguish three possible relationships: (a) superiority of aesthetics in making contributions persuasive, (b) integrity as a necessary precondition for the efficacy of aesthetics, and (c) a compensatory relationship between aesthetics and integrity. Basic argumentative dialogs were varied in aesthetic quality via the use of figurative language and in fairness via the addition of faulty, insincere, or unjust arguments. Materials were presented in a written (Study I) or spoken form (Study II), and followed with questions exploring cognitive, emotional, and conative aspects of persuasive efficacy. Results of both studies strongly support case (b): Only in arguments perceived as fair can persuasive impact be enhanced by aesthetic means.
Keywords: Esthetics, Fairness, Female, Humans, Male, Persuasive Communication, Semantics, Sozialpsychologie -
(2000): Studying perceptions of juror influence in vivo: A social relations analysis. In: Law and human behavior 24 (2), S. 173-186
Abstract: Because of legal constraints and statistical limitations there has been little research on social influence in actual juries. We used Kenny's (1994) social relations model to examine jurors' perceptions of social influence in the jury. After rendering a verdict in criminal or civil court cases, jurors rated how influential each member of the jury had been and provided self-reports of their personality traits. Perceptions of influence in the jury were mostly in the eye of the beholder, with jurors high in Conscientiousness and low in Openness being most likely to report that they were personally influenced by other jurors. There were small but statistically significant levels of consensus in the ratings of how influential the jurors were. To the extent that they did agree, jurors rated extraverted, tall men as most influential.
- <<
- <
- 1