Are many sex/gender differences really power differences?

This research addresses the long-standing debate about the determinants of sex/gender differences. Evolutionary theorists trace many sex/gender differences back to natural selection and sex-specific adaptations. Sociocultural and biosocial theorists, in contrast, emphasize how societal roles and social power contribute to sex/gender differences beyond any biological distinctions. By connecting two empirical advances over the past two decades-6-fold increases in sex/gender difference meta-analyses and in experiments conducted on the psychological effects of power-the current research offers a novel empirical examination of whether power differences play an explanatory role in sex/gender differences. Our analyses assessed whether experimental manipulations of power and sex/gender differences produce similar psychological and behavioral effects. We first identified 59 findings from published experiments on power. We then conducted a P-curve of the experimental power literature and established that it contained evidential value. We next subsumed these effects of power into 11 broad categories and compared them to 102 similar meta-analytic sex/gender differences. We found that high-power individuals and men generally display higher agency, lower communion, more positive self-evaluations, and similar cognitive processes. Overall, 71% (72/102) of the sex/gender differences were consistent with the effects of experimental power differences, whereas only 8% (8/102) were opposite, representing a 9:1 ratio of consistent-to-inconsistent effects. We also tested for discriminant validity by analyzing whether power corresponds more strongly to sex/gender differences than extraversion: although extraversion correlates with power, it has different relationships with sex/gender differences. These results offer novel evidence that many sex/gender differences may be explained, in part, by power differences.

Power pose effects on approach and avoidance decisions in response to social threat

Individuals' opportunities for action in threatening social contexts largely depend on their social power. While powerful individuals can afford to confront aggressors and dangers, powerless individuals need others' support and better avoid direct challenges. Here, we investigated if adopting expansive or contracted poses, which signal dominance and submission, impacts individuals' approach and avoidance decisions in response to social threat signals using a within-subject design. Overall, participants more often chose to avoid rather than to approach angry individuals, but showed no clear approach or avoidance preference for fearful individuals. Crucially, contracted poses considerably increased the tendency to avoid angry individuals, whereas expansive poses induced no substantial changes. This suggests that adopting power-related poses may impact action decisions in response to social threat signals. The present results emphasize the social function of power poses, but should be replicated before drawing strong conclusions.

Power and decision making: new directions for research in the age of artificial intelligence

Throughout history, the experience of power has occurred within the context of human-human interactions. Such power can influence decision making through at least two primary mechanisms: (1) increased goal-orientation, and (2) increased activation of social role expectations. Importantly, new advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are creating the potential to experience power in human-AI interactions. To the extent that some forms of AI can be made to seem like low-power humans (e.g. autonomous digital assistants), people may feel powerful when interacting with such entities. However, it is unclear whether feeling power over AI will lead to the same psychological consequences as feeling power over humans. In this article, we review findings on power and decision making and then consider how they may be meaningfully extended by considering interactions with artificially intelligent digital assistants. We conclude with a call for new theorizing and research on power in the age of artificial intelligence.

Social power and frontal alpha asymmetry

Recent studies have shown that the states of high and low social power (the ability to control or influence another's thoughts, feelings, or behaviours) are related to left and right frontal hemisphere activity, respectively, suggesting a connection with two neurobiological motivational systems-the Behavioural Activation and Inhibition Systems. However, an important and outstanding question is which state of social power is associated with differences in hemispheric activity. In the current study, we addressed this outstanding issue by examining differences in frontal alpha asymmetry while participants engaged in an established episodic recall task, priming states of high, low, or neutral social power. Our results showed that it was the low social power state that was associated with hemispheric differences; that is, the low social power state was associated with significantly less left-frontal cortical activity relative to both the high and neutral social power states, while the latter two states did not differ. We discuss our results considering previous work on social power and the notion that different social power states are associated with different cognitive and behavioural tendencies.

The Role of Experimenter Belief in Social Priming

Research suggests that stimuli that prime social concepts can fundamentally alter people’s behavior. However, most researchers who conduct priming studies fail to explicitly report double-blind procedures. Because experimenter expectations may influence participant behavior, we asked whether a short pre-experiment interaction between participants and experimenters would contribute to priming effects when experimenters were not blind to participant condition. An initial double-blind experiment failed to demonstrate the expected effects of a social prime on executive cognition. To determine whether double-blind procedures caused this result, we independently manipulated participants’ exposure to a prime and experimenters’ belief about which prime participants received. Across four experiments, we found that experimenter belief, rather than prime condition, altered participant behavior. Experimenter belief also altered participants’ perceptions of their experimenter, suggesting that differences in experimenter behavior across conditions caused the effect. Findings reinforce double-blind designs as experimental best practice and suggest that people’s prior beliefs have important consequences for shaping behavior with an interaction partner.

How Power Affects People: Activating, Wanting, and Goal Seeking

Sociocognitive research has demonstrated that power affects how people feel, think, and act. In this article, I review literature from social psychology, neuroscience, management, and animal research and propose an integrated framework of power as an intensifier of goal-related approach motivation. A growing literature shows that power energizes thought, speech, and action and orients individuals toward salient goals linked to power roles, predispositions, tasks, and opportunities. Power magnifies self-expression linked to active parts of the self (the active self), enhancing confidence, self-regulation, and prioritization of efforts toward advancing focal goals. The effects of power on cognitive processes, goal preferences, performance, and corruption are discussed, and its potentially detrimental effects on social attention, perspective taking, and objectification of subordinates are examined. Several inconsistencies in the literature are explained by viewing power holders as more flexible and dynamic than is usually assumed.

Limits of control: the effects of uncontrollability experiences on the efficiency of attentional control

Two experiments were conducted to explore the effects of experiencing uncontrollability on the efficiency of attentional control. The experience of uncontrollability was induced either by unsolvable tasks (Experiment 1) or by tasks in which non-contingent feedback was provided (Experiment 2). A version of the Attentional Network Test-Interactions with an additional measure of vigilance (ANTI-V) was used to evaluate the efficiency of the attentional networks (i.e., alerting, orienting, and executive). Results of both experiments revealed a decreased efficiency of executive attention in participants who experienced stable control deprivation but no negative effects in participants who were able to restore their sense of previously deprived control. Additionally, when participants were asked to perform unsolvable tasks and did not receive feedback (Experiment 1), detrimental effects on the orienting network and vigilance were observed. The motivational and cognitive mechanisms underlying the effects of various uncontrollability experiences on conflict resolution and attentional control are discussed.

Flipping the Switch

Research suggests that high levels of interpersonal power can promote enhanced executive functioning capabilities. The present work explored whether this effect is contingent upon expectancies concerning power’s downstream cognitive consequences. Study 1 showed that social dominance orientation (SDO) predicted idiosyncratic expectancies of mental energy change toward interpersonal power. Study 2 showed that SDO moderated the executive functioning changes associated with interpersonal power and that this moderation effect was contingent upon changes in perceived mental depletion. Study 3 showed that directly manipulating expectancies of mental energy change concerning interpersonal power moderated the executive functioning consequences of power and that this moderation effect was contingent upon SDO and changes in perceived mental depletion. Together, the present findings underscore the importance of expectancies and individual differences in understanding the effects of interpersonal power.

How Quickly Can You Detect it?

This study investigated how power impacts the ability to orient attention across space. Participants were assigned to a high-power or control role and then performed a computerized spatial cueing task that required them to direct their attention to a target preceded by either a valid or invalid location cue. Compared to participants in the control condition, power holders were better at overriding the misinformation provided by invalid cues. This advantage occurred only at 500 ms stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA), whereas at 1000 ms SOA, when there was more time to prepare a response, no differences were found. These findings are taken to support the growing idea that social power affects cognitive flexibility.

Power corrupts co-operation: cognitive and motivational effects in a double EEG paradigm

This study investigated the effect of interpersonal power on co-operative performance. We used a paired electro-encephalogram paradigm: pairs of participants performed an attention task, followed by feedback indicating monetary loss or gain on every trial. Participants were randomly allocated to the power-holder, subordinate or neutral group by creating different levels of control over how a joint monetary reward would be allocated. We found that power was associated with reduced behavioural accuracy. Event-related potential analysis showed that power-holders devoted less motivational resources to their targets than did subordinates or neutrals, but did not differ at the level of early conflict detection. Their feedback potential results showed a greater expectation of rewards but reduced subjective magnitude attributed to losses. Subordinates, on the other hand, were asymmetrically sensitive to power-holders' targets. They expected fewer rewards, but attributed greater significance to losses. Our study shows that power corrupts balanced co-operation with subordinates.