The Effects of Social Power on Goal Content and Goal Striving: A Situated Perspective

Experimentally manipulated anger activates implicit cognitions about social hierarchy

A correlational pilot study (N = 143) and an integrative data analysis of two experiments (total N = 377) provide evidence linking anger to the psychology of social hierarchy. The experiments demonstrate that the experience of anger increases the psychological accessibility of implicit cognitions related to social hierarchy: compared to participants in a control condition, participants in an anger-priming condition completed word stems with significantly more hierarchy-related words. We found little support for sex differences in the effect of anger on implicit hierarchy-related cognition; effects were equivalent across male and female participants. Findings fit with functionalist evolutionary views of anger suggesting that anger may motivate the use of dominance to strive for high social rank in group hierarchies. Implications for downstream behaviour, including aggression and negotiation, are discussed.

Lifting Me Up or Tearing You Down? The Role of Prestige and Dominance in Benign Versus Malicious Envy

Dominance and prestige are two strategies people use to regulate their social rank within group hierarchies. Despite a growing literature on dominance- and prestige-oriented leaders, little is known about how those strategies operate among people lower in social rank. Four studies tested the hypothesis that, among subordinates, dominance and prestige are associated with high levels of malicious and benign envy, respectively. Individual differences in prestige were positively and independently associated with benign envy, and negatively associated with malicious envy. Individual differences in dominance were positively and independently associated with both malicious and benign envy. Two experiments demonstrated that activating a prestige-oriented mindset (relative to a dominance-oriented mindset) caused people to display higher levels of benign envy. No experimental effects on malicious envy were observed. Theories of prestige and dominance provide a useful framework for understanding ways in which subordinate group members strive for high social rank.

A goal-centric outlook on learning

Goals play a central role in human cognition. However, computational theories of learning and decision-making often take goals as given. Here, we review key empirical findings showing that goals shape the representations of inputs, responses, and outcomes, such that setting a goal crucially influences the central aspects of any learning process: states, actions, and rewards. We thus argue that studying goal selection is essential to advance our understanding of learning. By following existing literature in framing goal selection within a hierarchy of decision-making problems, we synthesize important findings on the principles underlying goal value attribution and exploration strategies. Ultimately, we propose that a goal-centric perspective will help develop more complete accounts of learning in both biological and artificial agents.

Power triggers moral reasoning aligned with active goals and moral flexibility across contexts

Three experiments tested the hypothesis that power elicits moral judgments in line with active goals, and moral flexibility across different contexts. Power and goals emanating from the mission associated with power were experimentally manipulated: person-centered mission, which benefits from outcome-focus, or regulation-centered mission, which benefits from rule-based focus. Power consistently elicited rule-based (deontological) moral reasoning under regulation-centered goals. However, power triggered outcome-based (utilitarian) moral reasoning under person-centered goals. Power enhanced goal serving morality due to greater goal commitment, with focal goal commitment mediating the interactive effects of power and focal goal on moral judgments. These findings show that the links between power and morality are context sensitive, flexible, and mediated by a greater commitment to active goals.

Power, status, and social judgment

Power (reflecting control over resources and the capacity to influence others through reward and punishment) and status (reflecting the capacity to influence others through respect and admiration) both represent central aspects of social hierarchy and both exert important influences on social judgment. This article reviews recent evidence regarding the effects power and status have on social judgment. In reviewing that evidence, we focus on the enhanced goal pursuit and social distance experienced by those with power, and on the need to be alert for signs of social disapproval among those high in status. The paper also reviews factors that influence perceptions of power and status, focusing on ways in which stereotypes about power and status might inform the way people perceive power and status in others.

Power and Persuasion: Processes by Which Perceived Power Can Influence Evaluative Judgments

The present review focuses on how power—as a perception regarding the self, the source of the message, or the message itself—affects persuasion. Contemporary findings suggest that perceived power can increase or decrease persuasion depending on the circumstances and thus might result in both short-term and long-term consequences for behavior. Given that perceptions of power can produce different, and even opposite, effects on persuasion, it might seem that any relationship is possible and thus prediction is elusive or impossible. In contrast, the present review provides a unified perspective to understand and organize the psychological literature on the relationship between perceived power and persuasion. To accomplish this objective, present review identifies distinct mechanisms by which perceptions of power can influence persuasion and discusses when these mechanisms are likely to operate. In doing so, this article provides a structured approach for studying power and persuasion via antecedents, consequences, underlying psychological processes, and moderators. Finally, the article also discusses how power can affect evaluative judgments more broadly.

Power and Autistic Traits

Autistic traits can help people gain and sustain power, and has probably done so throughout history, says the present paper. A number of testable claims follow from this assumption. First, the powerful should have more autistic traits than others - which they do appear to have. Among other things, powerful people, and those with many autistic traits, tend to prefer solitary activities and are often aloof. Moreover, they are often rigid and socially insensitive, low on empathy and with low scores on the trait of agreeableness - and as a rule they do not have many friends. Both groups are also more self-centered than others, more honest, less submissive, more sensitive to slights, and with a stronger tendency to engage in abstract thinking. They tend to behave in bossy or dominant ways, and their moral judgment is more based on rules than on feelings. In addition to experimental evidence, I cite biographies showing that a surprising number of presidents, prime ministers and other powerful people seem to have had traits like those in question - and interestingly, in animals, leaders are often rigid and insensitive to group members' needs and feelings, mostly acting the way they are themselves inclined to, not responding much to others. Problem solving is important in leadership, and people with many autistic traits appear often to be better thinkers than typical subjects with similar IQs. However, these and other congruities could be coincidences. Hence the question of whether traits the two groups have in common also have a common cause constitutes a strong test of the paper's thesis - and a common cause does appear to exist, in the form of testosterone's effects on the central nervous system. Finally, there is evidence that, other things equal, powerful men have more reproductive success than others. If men wielding power do indeed have more autistic traits than those less powerful, this will lead to, other things equal, such traits becoming more common - which can help explain the prevalence of autistic traits.

On power and empowerment

This study presents a conceptual analysis of social power. The most common theories of power are social-relational, an approach instantiated in a range of contemporary experiments that give participants the chance to control other people's outcomes. The relational approach is also reflected in various analyses of international relations. In comparing and contrasting relational theories of power, I identify logical inconsistencies and shortcomings in their ability to address empowerment and reductions in inequality. In turn, I propose a new ecological conceptualization of empowerment as the state of being able to achieve one's goals and of power as stemming from a combination of the capacity of the party and the affordances of the environment. I explain how this new conceptualization can describe the main kinds of power social relations, avoid logical contradictions, and moreover, distinguish power from agency and from control. This new conceptualization of power as the possibility of meeting goals, coupled with recognizing survival as the fundamental goal of all living things, implies an absolute and not relative or relational standard for power, namely well-being. It also allows us to conceive of power in ways that help address the many social concerns that have motivated research on power.

Prioritizing—The Task Strategy of the Powerful?

Previous research has shown that power increases focus on the main goal when distractor information is present. As a result, high-power people have been described as goal-focused. In real life, one typically wants to pursue multiple goals at the same time. There is a lack of research on how power affects how people deal with situations in which multiple important goals are present. To address this question, 158 participants were primed with high or low power or assigned to a control condition, and were asked to perform a dual-goal task with three difficulty levels. We hypothesized and found that high-power primed people prioritize when confronted with a multiple-goal situation. More specifically, when task demands were relatively low, power had no effect; participants generally pursued multiple goals in parallel. However, when task demands were high, the participants in the high-power condition focused on a single goal whereas participants in the low-power condition continued using a dual-task strategy. This study extends existing power theories and research in the domain of goal pursuit.

The Selfish Side of Self–Control

Self–control is a powerful tool that promotes goal pursuit by helping individuals curb personal desires, follow norms, and adopt rational thinking. In interdependent social contexts, the socially acceptable (i.e. normative) and rational approach to secure long–term goals is prosocial behaviour. Consistent with that, much research associates self–control with prosociality. The present research demonstrates that when norm salience is reduced (i.e. social relations are no longer interdependent), high self–control leads to more selfish behaviour when it is economically rational. In three studies, participants were asked to allocate an endowment between themselves and another person (one–round, zero–sum version of the dictator game), facing a conflict between a socially normative and an economically rational approach. Across the studies, norm salience was manipulated [through manipulation of social context (private/public; Studies 1 and 2), measurement of social desirability (Studies 1 and 3), and measurement (Study 2) and manipulation (Study 3) of social power] such that some participants experienced low normative pressure. Findings showed that among individuals in a low normative pressure context, self–control led to economically rational, yet selfish, behaviour. The findings highlight the role of self–control in regulating behaviour so as to maximize situational adaptation. Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology

Perspectives on Power in Organizations

Power is a critical resource for organizational actors. Given the profound importance of power to individual functioning, it is essential to understand how some individuals acquire power when others do not, why some individuals retain their power once they have attained it, and why others fall from their lofty positions in spite of the political advantages power provides. In this review, we conceptualize power as a process that unfolds over time and review research that speaks to three distinct but related dynamics: the acquisition, maintenance, and loss of power. We address and attempt to reconcile a burgeoning set of findings that appear to conflict with each other, especially findings vis-à-vis the maintenance and loss of power. We conclude by addressing overlooked topics and areas for future research.

Bullseye!

Power makes people think, feel, and behave in ways that help them to maintain and increase power. Thus far, the mechanisms underlying power’s beneficial effects on goal pursuit have been investigated predominantly on a cognitive level. The present research tested whether power influences goal pursuit in an even more fundamental way, namely by improving actual behavior on motor-based tasks. Furthermore, we suggest that this effect is produced by changes in perceptual goal representation. Consistent with our assumptions, Experiment 1 found that individuals primed with high-power outperformed control participants on a golf-putting task. In Experiment 2, individuals receiving a high-power prime outperformed individuals receiving a low-power prime on a dart-throwing task. Moreover, high-power primed participants represented the focal goal (a dart board) in greater goal-relevant detail, which mediated the effect of power on motor performance. Taken together, these findings suggest that power shapes performance in more fundamental ways than previously assumed.