Contextual and personal determinants of preferring success attributed to natural talent or striving. Christina M. Brown, Nicole S. Troy, Katie R. Jobson , Jennifer K. Link. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.03.017
Highlights
• Achievement is often attributed to natural talent (naturals) or hard work (strivers).
• Past research has found a preference for naturals over strivers.
• We replicated the bias among experienced perceivers evaluating professional targets.
• Conversely, strivers were preferred when the target appeared to be an ordinary person.
• We observed a new naturalness bias: Strivers are assumed to have natural talent.
Abstract: Evidence to date has established a preference for successful individuals whose achievements are attributed to natural talent (“naturals”) rather than focused effort (“strivers”). Across six studies, we discovered a reversal of the bias depending on contextual and personal factors. Strivers, rather than naturals, are favored when evaluating ordinary people. This preference is particularly strong among perceivers who have experience in the performance domain, and it replicates across different domains and participant populations. Strivers are also preferred as cooperative partners and are expected to perform better on novel, unrelated tasks. The direction of the preference for naturals versus strivers can be traced to a combination of the perceiver's experience and the target's professional status. Specifically, a naturalness bias was only present among experienced perceivers evaluating professional targets. On the other hand, a more implicit form of the naturalness bias was observed in attributions made about the target's achievement, such that strivers were assumed to have natural talent more than naturals were assumed to have worked diligently.
Keywords: Natural talent; Naturals; Strivers; Naturalness bias; Essentialism
Friday, April 13, 2018
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
C S W: While I appreciate the posts I've thus seen from the "bipartisan alliance," I'm curious why you use a sociopolitical site to disseminate new scientific research. I'm suspicious that the research noted by the site is...well, is "cherry picked" to serve "bipartisan" political purposes rather than objective, scientific purposes.
ReplyDeleteme:believe me, it is not used for that purpose, althought it would be very, very easy to bend to that bias... It is just sentimental, I do not want to close the site because of what it was for me (and my colleagues) in the past, but it is not used for such purpose. It is a real problem for me that politics is so bitter, nobody likes to connect to a politics-connected page