Imagine that some person or organization is now a stranger, but you are considering forming a relation with them. Imagine further that they have one of two possible reputations: presumed selfish, or presumed pro-social. Assume also that the presumption about you is somewhere between these two extremes of selfish and pro-social.
It should be obvious that I don't mean relation in a math sense, as in "has same first name as". I mean in our usual social sense, wherein others become aware of the relation and give it social weight.
Interesting insight. A corollary might explain the (unexpected - at least for me) closeness of this presidential election. We distrust female politicians who are saliently power-hungry because we (semi-reasonably) want to deny the most powerful the immunities of feminity.
The observations about us holding firms to be selfish but being comfortable relying on them for good and services and not preferring non-profits; and preferring men for (challenging) jobs like investors and bosses and women for (caring, pro-social) work like teaching, childcare etc. fits perfectly with Cuddy, Fiske et al's work on warmth and competence. For profits are judged to be less warm but more competent than non-profits and people prefer to buy from for-profits for this reason, as confirmed by Aaker, J. Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. (2010) applying this framework. Likewise men are judged to be less warm, but more competent than women.
You just described why my wife refuses to let me hire friends or buy through friends (i.e. buy insurance from a friend).
It should be obvious that I don't mean relation in a math sense, as in "has same first name as". I mean in our usual social sense, wherein others become aware of the relation and give it social weight.
You might want to qualify "relation" here. For example, much of this doesn't seem to apply to the "consumes information from" relation.
In what respects are soldier bosses expected to be more pro-social?
"There is little push to substitute non-profits..."
Are we sure about this?
Interesting insight. A corollary might explain the (unexpected - at least for me) closeness of this presidential election. We distrust female politicians who are saliently power-hungry because we (semi-reasonably) want to deny the most powerful the immunities of feminity.
The observations about us holding firms to be selfish but being comfortable relying on them for good and services and not preferring non-profits; and preferring men for (challenging) jobs like investors and bosses and women for (caring, pro-social) work like teaching, childcare etc. fits perfectly with Cuddy, Fiske et al's work on warmth and competence. For profits are judged to be less warm but more competent than non-profits and people prefer to buy from for-profits for this reason, as confirmed by Aaker, J. Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. (2010) applying this framework. Likewise men are judged to be less warm, but more competent than women.