The Influence Matrix:

1. The Influence Matrix: An Integrative Model of Social Motivation and Emotion

2. The Influence Matrix is part of a new unified theory of psychology being taught to doctoral students at JMU What is the Influence Matrix?

3. The Four Pieces that make up the Unified Theory Tree of Knowledge (ToK) System The Justification Hypothesis The Influence Matrix Behavioral Investment Theory

4. The Influence Matrix Assimilates and Integrates many different lines of theory and research

5. The Influence Matrix Reward Self Self-Centered/Oriented Strategies for Influence PRIDE HOPE – Anticipation of Pleasure dominance JOY/ ANGER PLEASURE/ High Influence autonomy APPROACH Punish Other LOVE hostility affiliation HATE Reward Other SADNESS/ Low Influence PAIN/ GUILT dependency AVOID Fear – Anticipation of Pain submission Other-Centered/Oriented Strategies for Influence Punish Self SHAME POWER Y-AXIS = INFLUENCE THROUGH COMPETITION/ CONTROL LOVE X-AXIS =INFLUENCE THROUGH ALTRUISM/ COOPERATION FREEDOMZ-AXIS =FREEDOMFROM INFLUENCE

6. Social Motivations and Relational Processes dominance High Influence autonomy hostility affiliation Low Influence dependency submission POWER Y-AXIS = INFLUENCE THROUGH COMPETITION/ CONTROL LOVE X-AXIS =INFLUENCE THROUGH ALTRUISM/ COOPERATION FREEDOMZ-AXIS =FREEDOMFROM INFLUENCE

7. Two Common Presentations Eduardo: More self-centered; Problems with anger, aggression and trust; can be cold/hostile; tends to externalize; defensive; overly self-reliant Jennifer: More other-centered; Concerned about what others think of her; Overly accommodating, unassertive; Sometimes feels anxious, guilty or shameful; Self-sacrificing to avoid conflict

8. The Matrix is an extension of Interpersonal Circumplex Models dominance hostility affiliation submission Timothy Leary developed the Circumplex in 1957

9. The Matrix Adds the Dimension of Social Influence Social Influence is a fundamental resource people are motivated to acquire. HOPE – Anticipation of Pleasure JOY/ PLEASURE/ High Influence APPROACH Low Influence SADNESS/ People have templates for high and low influence and are motivated to approach indicators of high influence and avoid indicators of loss of influence PAIN/ AVOID Fear – Anticipation of Pain

10. There should be some universal indicators of social influence… • The amount of attention one receives relative to others • The ratio of positive to negative affect • The responsiveness of others to one’s needs and the willingness of others to sacrifice for one’s interests • The amount of influence one has to others and one’s past levels of influence

11. The Relationship between “Power” and Social Influence The vertical dimension of relating, Power, is thought to be positively related to social influence, but not identical to it. dominance High Influence Low Influence submission POWER Y-AXIS = INFLUENCE THROUGH COMPETITION/ CONTROL

12. There are two kinds of competitive influence • Direct • Refers to immediate competition over resources where there is a dominant/submissive or winner/loser relationship • Indirect • Strive to be better than others in terms of abilities or characteristics (e.g., performance based achievement strivings)

13. The Relationship between “Love” and Social Influence The horizontal dimension of relating, Love, is thought to be positively related to social influence, but not identical to it. High Influence hostility affiliation Low Influence LOVE X-AXIS =INFLUENCE THROUGH ALTRUISM/ COOPERATION

14. There are four distinct kinds of cooperative/altruistic influence • Nepotistic • Giving to kin/not necessarily reciprocated • Reciprocal • Giving and getting back, Giving to be liked • Group • Identifying with a group and sacrificing for it • Moral • Justifying altruism

15. The Matrix also adds the Dimension of Autonomy-Dependency High Influence autonomy Low Influence dependency FREEDOMZ-AXIS =FREEDOMFROM INFLUENCE

16. Meaning of Autonomy and Dependency • Autonomy is the capacity to function independently and be free from the undue influence of others • Self-Reliance, Self-Governance • Separation/Individuation • At the extreme, becomes counterdependence • Dependency is extent to which one requires others to function effectively • “Physical” (money, food, shelter) • Emotional Support and Approval • At extreme, becomes enmeshed/self-other fusion

17. The Predicted Relationship Between Autonomy-Dependency and Social Influence The z-axis dimension of relating, Freedom, is thought to have a curvilinear relation to social influence. High Influence autonomy Low Influence dependency FREEDOMZ-AXIS =FREEDOMFROM INFLUENCE

18. The Self-Other Quadrants Reward Self Self-Centered/Oriented Strategies for Influence PRIDE dominance ANGER autonomy Punish Other LOVE hostility affiliation HATE Reward Other GUILT dependency submission Other-Centered/Oriented Strategies for Influence Punish Self SHAME POWER Y-AXIS = INFLUENCE THROUGH COMPETITION/ CONTROL LOVE X-AXIS =INFLUENCE THROUGH ALTRUISM/ COOPERATION FREEDOMZ-AXIS =FREEDOMFROM INFLUENCE

19. The Self-Other Quadrants UPPER LEFT dominance autonomy hostility affiliation dependency submission LOWER RIGHT

20. Psychometric Properties of the Influence Matrix Social Motivation Scale Mary Tabit and Jay Cozen

21. The Influence Matrix: An Integrative Model of Social Motivation and Affect Reward Self Self-Centered/Oriented Strategies for Influence PRIDE HOPE – Anticipation of Pleasure dominance JOY/ ANGER PLEASURE/ High Influence autonomy APPROACH Punish Other LOVE hostility affiliation HATE Reward Other SADNESS/ Low Influence PAIN/ GUILT dependency AVOID Fear – Anticipation of Pain submission Other-Centered/Oriented Strategies for Influence Punish Self SHAME POWER Y-AXIS = INFLUENCE THROUGH COMPETITION/ CONTROL LOVE X-AXIS =INFLUENCE THROUGH ALTRUISM/ COOPERATION FREEDOMZ-AXIS =FREEDOMFROM INFLUENCE

22. Our goal was to develop a measure of social motivation componentsSpecifically, we wanted a measure for each of the Eight Influence Matrix poles dom High Influe auto hosti affil Low Influe depend subm High-Low Influence Autonomy- Dependency Hostility-Affiliation Dominance-Submission

23. Initial Attempt • Original measure • Consisted of 48 items • Administered to 129 students enrolled in an undergraduate psychology class at the University of Pennsylvania • Item analysis revealed that Cronbach’s alpha was not adequate, especially for Autonomy/Dependency domain • As a result, items were added/omitted in an attempt to increase internal reliability

24. Current IM-Social Motivation measure • Current measure • Initially Consisted of 96 items; Hostility, Affiliation, Submission and Dominance (11 items); High and Low Influence (12 items); Autonomy (13 items); Dependency (15 items) on each subscale • Administered to 500 students enrolled in an undergraduate psychology course at James Madison University • Items were analyzed and poorly functioning items removed. Final scale consisted of 84 items, 10 for each subscale of Dominance, Submission, Affiliation, Hostility, High Influence, Low Influence and 12 for Autonomy and Dependency

25. Participant demographics • Undergraduates at JMU • Gender: 39% male; 61% female • Age: 33% age 18; 46.2% age 19; 12.8% age 20; 5.4% age 21; 2.0% age 22; 0.6% age 23 • Race: 86.8% Caucasian; 4.2% Asian American; 3.4% Hispanic; 2.6% African American; 2.4% Other; 0.6% American Indian and/or Pacific Islander

26. Sample Items • Dominance • Other people have told me I am assertive. • I am more dominant than most. • Submission • I tend to give in to what other people want. • Other people view me as submissive. • Affiliation • Other people know they can count on me to help. • Other people often tell me I am kind. • Hostility • I am more hostile than most. • I can be mean and insensitive.

27. Sample Items • Autonomy • I am more independent than most. • Other people see me as self-reliant. • Dependency • Other people view me as more dependent than most. • I like to be taken care of. • High Influence • I am an admired person. • I have many close, meaningful relationships. • Low Influence • I have a lot of failures relative to my friends and family. • I sometimes feel neglected by important people in my life.

28. Psychometric Properties • The Cronbach’s alpha for each pole is: • Dominance .830 • Submission .804 • Affiliation .867 • Hostility .793 • Autonomy .747 • Dependency .739 • High influence .826 • Low influence .823

29. The Correlation Matrix:Some Predicted Relationships • A moderate negative correlation between the poles • Moderate positive correlations between the poles in the high influence quadrant • Moderate positive correlations between poles in the low influence quadrant • Moderate positive correlations between poles in the self-quadrant • Moderate positive correlations between poles in the other-quadrant

30. Moderate Negative Correlations between the Poles dominance High Influence autonomy High and Low Influence -.578 Dominance and Submission -.515 Affiliation and Hostility -.302 Autonomy and Dependency -.440 hostility affiliation Low Influence dependency submission

31. Correlations in the High Influence Quadrant High Influence and Dominance .421* High Influence andAffiliation .557* High Influence and Autonomy .251* Affiliation andDominance .046 Autonomy and Affiliation -.024 Autonomy andDominance .401* dominance High Influence autonomy affiliation

32. Correlations in the Low Influence Quadrant Low Influence and Submission .501* Low Influence andHostility .288* Low Influence and Dependency .285* Hostility andSubmission -.180* Dependency and Hostility .046 Dependency andSubmission .518* hostility dependency Low Influence submission

33. The Self-Other Quadrants Hostility andDominance .537* Autonomy andDominance .401* Autonomy and Hostility .230* dominance autonomy hostility affiliation dependency submission Affiliation andSubmission .091* Dependency and Affiliation .306* Dependency andSubmission .518*

34. Regression Analyses: According to the Matrix the Relational Process Dimensions Should Predict High and Low Influence

35. Regression Analysis for High Influence The six relational process poles accounted for 52% of the variance and each was a significant predictor in the regression equation.

36. Regression Analysis for High Influence dominance Beta Weights Dominance .258 Affiliation .517 Autonomy .133 Submission -.261 Hostility -.082 Dependency .101 High Influence autonomy hostility affiliation dependency submission Note all are significant, the darkness of the line indicates the str. of the Beta weight.

37. Regression Analysis for Low Influence The six relational process poles accounted for 48% of the variance and each was a significant predictor in the regression equation.

38. Regression Analysis for Low Influence Beta Weights Dominance -.100 Affiliation -.309 Autonomy .188 Submission .498 Hostility .287 Dependency .186 dominance autonomy hostility affiliation Low Influence dependency submission Note all are significant, the darkness of the line indicates the str. of the Beta weight.

39. Summary The Influence Matrix is a theoretically sophisticated formulation of human social motivation and emotion that can connect many different domains of research. The Matrix makes many predictions about the relationship between various elements of social motivation. The Influence Matrix Social Motivation Scale demonstrated good internal psychometrics and yielded results very consistent with the theory.

40. The Influence Matrix and Personality Trait Theory Mark Menzies Catherine Munns

41. The Historical Relationship between the Interpersonal Circumplex and the Big Five • The Big Five is a well-known and well documented theory that there are five broad personality traits • The Interpersonal Circumplex posits that there are two broad relational styles of dominance and nurturance

42. Many researchers argued (e.g., Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990) that Extraversion corresponded to Dominance and that Agreeableness Corresponded to Affiliation

43. Extraversion Neuroticism Self-Focused PRIDE dominance Positive Affect ANGER autonomy High Influence Agreeableness LOVE hostility affiliation HATE Low Influence GUILT dependency Negative Affect submission Other-Focused SHAME The Influence Matrix suggests a different relationship between the variables

44. Predicted Relationships • Large amounts of variance of Agreeableness, Extraversion and Neuroticism should be accounted for by the variables measured by the Influence Matrix-Social Motivation Scale • Less variance should be accounted for regarding Conscientiousness and Openness. • Dominance, Affiliation, High Influence and Positive Affect should be positively related to Extraversion, whereas Submission, Hostility, Low Influence and Negative Affect should be negatively related.

45. Correlation Matrix

46. Regression Analysis for Agreeableness R2 = 62.7% dominance High Influence autonomy hostility affiliation Beta Weights High Influence .153 Low Influence -.150 Dominance ns Affiliation .274 Autonomy -.127 Submission ns Hostility -.489 Dependency .109 p<.01 Agreeableness dependency Low Influence submission Note the darkness of the line indicates the str. of the Beta weight.

47. Analysis of Results from Regression Analysis • As expected, the Matrix variables accounted for a huge portion of the variance of Agreeableness. • In addition, as predicted, affiliation and hostility accounted for the most variance, with autonomy and dependency also accounting for variance in the expected way. • However, submissiveness and dominance did not relate to agreeableness as expected, and high and low influence related more than expected.

48. Regression Analysis for Extraversion Extraversion R2 = 49.7% dominance Positive Affect autonomy High Influence hostility affiliation Beta Weights High Influence ns Low Influence -.231 Dominance .533 Affiliation .137 Autonomy ns Submission -.158 Hostility -.096 Dependency ns Positive Affect .135 p<.01 dependency Low Influence submission Note the darkness of the line indicates the str. of the Beta weight.

49. Analysis of Results from Regression Analysis • As expected, the Matrix variables accounted for a large portion of the variance of extraversion. • In addition, as predicted, dominance, affiliation and positive affect all accounted for significant variance in the expected way. Hostility and submission were also negatively related to Extraversion as expected. • However, high influence was not related to Extraversion as expected, although this may be because low influence was negatively related to Extraversion.

50. Regression Analysis for Neuroticism R2 = 48.4% dominance Beta Weights High Influence ns Low Influence .111 Dominance ns Affiliation .230 Autonomy -.261 Submission ns Hostility .215 Dependency ns Neg Affect .318 p<.01 autonomy High Influence affiliation hostility dependency Low Influence submission Negative Affect Neuroticism Note the darkness of the line indicates the str. of the Beta weight.