Humor

Power, approach, and inhibition: Empirical advances of a theory

Description
The approach-inhibition theory of power proposed that elevated power (which relates to increased rewards and freedom) activates approach-related tendencies, whereas reduced power (which relates to increased threat, punishment, and social constraint)
Categories
Published
of 5
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  Power,approach,andinhibition:empiricaladvancesof   atheory  Minha   Cho   and   Dacher   Keltner The   approach-inhibition   theory   of    power   proposed   thatelevated   power   (which   relates   to   increased   rewards   andfreedom)   activates   approach-related   tendencies,   whereasreduced   power   (which   relates   to   increased   threat,   punishment,andsocial   constraint)   activates   inhibition-related   tendenciesKeltner   et     al.   (2003).   In   the   current   article,   we   review   theempirical   advances   —   over   the   past   16   years   —   regarding   fourmain   propositions   of    the   approach-inhibition   theory   of    power:(a)   positive   affect   versus   negative   affect,   (b)   attention   torewards   versus   attention   to   threats,   (c)   automatic   cognitionversus   systematic/controlled   cognition,   and   (d)   disinhibited   andstate/trait   driven   behavior   versus   inhibited   and   situationallyconstrained   behavior.   By   revealing   robust   empirical   supportfor,   and   imaginative   extensions   of,   the   four   propositions,   thisreview   invites   future   studies   of    power   to   further   build   upon   andrevise   the   early   claims   of    approach-inhibition   theory.  Address UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,UnitedStatesCorrespondingauthor:Keltner,Dacher( keltner@berkeley.edu ) CurrentOpinioninPsychology  2020, 33 :196–200Thisreviewcomesfromathemedissueon Power,statusandhierarchy  Editedby GerbenvanKleef and JoeyCheng https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.0132352-250X/  ã 2019PublishedbyElsevierLtd. The     fundamental    concept    in    social     sciences   is    Power,   in   the  samesense    that     Energy   is   the     fundamental    concept    in physics.   ..   The    laws   of     social    dynamics   are    laws   whichcanonly   be     stated    in   terms   of     power    (Russell,   1938,p.10)Twenty   years   ago,   with   scattered   attention   to   power   insocialpsychology,   and   some   suggestive   findings   from   newstudies,Keltner   et    al.   offered   their   approach-inhibitiontheoryof    power   [1].The   current   article   tracks   theempirical   advances   —   over   the   past   16   years   —   that   wereinpart   inspired   by   that   theory.   Within   this   theoreticalframework,   elevated   power   is   associated   with   increasedrewardsand   freedom,   which   in   turn   activate   approach-relatedtendencies.   In   contrast,   diminished   power   isassociated   with   increased   threat,   punishment,   and   socialconstraint,   perceptual   and   social   factors   that   activateinhibition-relatedtendencies.   In   this   article,   we   reviewempirical   evidence   related   to   the   four   main   propositionsofthe   initial   formulation   of    the   theory   and   its   predictionsconcerning:(a)   positive   affect   versus   negative   affect,   (b)attentionto   rewards   versus   attention   to   threats,   (c)   auto-maticcognition   versussystematic/controlled   cognition,and(d)   disinhibited   and   state/trait   driven   behavior   versusinhibitedand   situationally   constrained   behavior. Positiveaffectversusnegativeaffect Across   measures   and   manipulations   of    social   power   (suchashaving   more   control   over   resources   within   a   task-focuseddyad),   elevated   social   power   has   been   found   tobeassociated   with   the   experience   of    increased   positiveemotionand   decreased   negative   emotion   [2,3].Being subjectedto   another   individual’s   elevated   power   leadstoincreased   negative   emotion.   Also   in   group   contexts,powerfulindividuals   were   again   more   likely   to   experienceandexpress   positive   emotion   and   less   likely   to   experienceandexpress   anger   [4].   Furthermore,   individuals   whoreporta   great   sense   of    power   vis-a `-vis   an   interactionpartner   were   more   likely   to   feel   inspiration   from   one’sownstories   in   face-to-face   interactions,   whereas   thosefeelingless   power   were   more   likely   to   experience   distresswhenfaced   with   another   participants’   disclosure   of previous   suffering   experiences   [5,6].Feeling   power   isnotlonelyat   the   top,   nor   the   source   of    stress;   it   hasprovento   be   areliable   source   of    positive   emotion   (forfurther   details   on   the   effects   of    power   on   emotion,   see   arecentreview   by   Van   Kleef    and   Lange   [7  ]).  Attentiontorewardsversusattentiontothreats Individualswitha   greatersense   of    power   —   asmeasuredor   manipulated   viaprimingtasks   or   roleassignmenttasks   —   weremore   optimistic   in   riskper-ception(e.g.   increased   anticipated   valueof    gains   andreduced   anticipated   valueof    losses)   andtime   prediction(e.g.underestimationof    futuretask   completion   time),andwere   moreriskyandoverconfidentin   theirdecisionmaking[8–11].   AnEEGstudyconducted   byBoksen etal. [12]   also   revealed   that   beingprimed   with   highsocialpower   —   rather   thanlowsocial   power   —increasedactivityin   theleft   prefrontalcortex,   whichisknown   to   beassociated   with   approach-relatedtendencies.   Such   findingswere   mirrored   in   studiesof socialperception   as   well.In   oneillustrative   study,participantswhohadmore   control   over   resources   withinanexperimentalso   perceivedmore   socialrewards(e.g.thinking   that   theirpartnerlikesthem)and   less   social  Available   online   at   www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect  CurrentOpinioninPsychology  2020, 33 :196–200www.sciencedirect.com  threat(e.g.thinkingthattheirpartnerfeelsangertowardthem)   [2].   Still   other   studies   on   thistheme,andof    certainrelevance   to   sexualharassment,   findthatpowerful   individualstendto   overperceivesexualinterestin   interactionpartners—   being   more   likelytoexpect   sexual   interestfrom   asubordinatethan justifiedbythat   individual’sfeelingsof    desire   [13].Alsoin   keeping   with   this   second   proposition   of    approach-inhibitiontheory,   powerful   participants   showed   a   greaterabilityto   focus   their   attention   on   task   demands(inhibitingperipheral   information),   to   distinguishgoal-relevant   features,   and   to   prioritize   goal-consistentbehavior—   which   eventually   enables   such   individuals   toachievetheir   desired   outcomes   more   easily,   as   comparedtoless   powerful   individuals   [14,15  ,16–18].   Participantsledto   feel   greater   power   were   also   less   willing   to   spendtheirresources   working   on   tasks   that   were   considered   asunworthy[19].And   in   the   context   of    consumer   behavior,powerful   individuals   showed   greater   preference   forproducts   that   offer   direct   utility   (such   as   performancequality);whereas   less   powerful   individuals   showedgreaterpreference   for   visible,   conspicuous   consumptionthatcan   signal   status   to   others   [20].Also   extendingproposition   2,participants   in   ahighpowercondition   were   morelikely   to   approach   otherpeoplein   terms   oftheir   usefulness   for   their   owngoals,treatingother   individuals   as   meansto   personal   ends[21].Furthermore,   Lammers   and   Stapel   [22]   foundthatpowerful   individuals   are   morelikely   to   dehumanizeotherindividuals,   allowing   themto   engage   in   distantandcolddecision   making,at   times   coollysacrificingthewelfareofothers.   And   whenconfrontedwithaconflictbetween   self-interestand   group   performance,   groupleaders   —   that   is,those   in   more   powerful   positions   —werefound   to   prioritize   self-interest   (such   as   securingtheir   ownstatus)   overthe   group’s   earnings,in   particularunder   conditionsofunstable   socialhierarchy   [23,24  ].Themindsets   ofthose   in   positions   ofpower   arelargelyfocused   onrewards;   those   ofpeople   feelinglesspowerfulare   oriented   to   threat.  Automaticcognitionversussystematic,controlledcognition Experiences   of    elevated   power   —   brought   about   by   socialprimes   as   well   as   assessed   in   actual   managerial   contexts   —wasfound   to   increase   individuals’   reliance   on   the   ease   of retrievalin    judgment,   aheuristic   cue   in   social   cognition,acrosscontexts   such   as   attitudes,   leisure-time   satisfaction,andstereotyping   [25].   Powerful   participants   also   attendedmoreselectively   to   external   information,   anchored   moreheavilyon   their   own   vantage   point   (rather   than   adjustingtothe   perspectives   of    others),   and   were   more   vulnerabletothe   planning   fallacy   —   due   to   the   ignoring   of    additionalinformationwhich   can   enhance   their   accuracy   inpredictions   [26]   —   all   signs   that   power   increases   thelikelihood   of    automatic   social   cognition.Onedeparture   from   proposition   3   is   the   work   of    SmithandTrope   [27],   who   found   that   being   primed   with   highpowerpromoted   abstract   thinking   —   focusing   on   theprimary   aspects   of    stimuli,   detecting   the   overall   patternandstructure,   and   categorizing   stimuli   at   a   higher   level   of analysis.   In   turn,   participants   who   were   assigned   toengage   in   more   abstract   thinking   reported   an   increasedsenseof    power,   more   preference   for   high   power   roles,   andagreater   sense   of    control   over   one’s   external   environment[28].In   contrast,   feeling   powerlessness   was   found   toimpair   executive   functioning   [18].With   regardto   social   perception,   studiesof    power   andprejudice   have   found   that   power   increasesone’sattention   to   stereotype-consistent   information   as   wellasimplicitprejudice.   More   specifically,   in   thisresearchpowerful   participants:1)   showed   greater   facilitationof positivewords   after   theirexposure   to   Whitefaces   andfacilitation   of    negativewordsafter   their   exposure   toBlack   faces,and2)   scored   higheron   racialprejudicescorestowardsArabs   in   an   Implicit   AssociationTest[29,30].Participants   primedwith   high   power   alsoshowedworseperformance   in   perceiving   socialnetworks   —   perceiving   whois   tiedto   whomin   novelnetworks—   or    judgingtheemotionsof    their   partnersinface-to-face   interactions[31–33]. Disinhibited,state/traitdrivenbehaviorversusinhibited,situationallyconstrainedbehavior In   general,   elevated   power   has   been   found   to   increaseapproach-related   behavior,   whereas   reduced   power   hasbeenfound   to   increase   inhibited,   indirect   behavior   —   inmixed-sex   stranger   interactions,   actual   organizationalsettings,and   experiments   involving   the   nonconsciouspriming   of    power   [33–35].   Building   upon   these   findings,Lammers   et    al.   [36]   have   claimed   that   both   social   power(i.e.having   power   over    others)   and   personal   power(i.e.having   freedom    from   others)   have   similar   effectsonpromoting   behavioral   approach.   Being   primed   withsocialpower   was   also   found   to   motivate   social   approach   —seekingnew   social   connections   —   after   experiencingsocialexclusion   [37].   Cook   et    al. [38]   also   found   that   alowersense   of    power   explains   why   feeling   stereotypedleads   to   inhibited   behavior   —   across   those   with   visiblestigma(e.g.   African   American),   more   concealable   stigma(e.g.gay   and   lesbian),   or   no   identifiable   stigma.Elevatedpower   alsohasbeenfoundto   strengthen   theinfluence   of    one’s   ownstate   or   trait—   whileweakeningsituational   influence   —   on   behavior.   Forexample,being   powerful   increased   thelikelihoodof    expressingone’s   trueattitudes   andopinionsin   groupdiscussions,andstrengthened   thelink   betweentrait-levelprosociality   andempathic   accuracy   [2,4,39].   Selfand Power,   approach,   and   inhibition   Cho   and   Keltner   197 www.sciencedirect.com CurrentOpinioninPsychology  2020, 33 :196–200  identityresearchrevealed   that   powerful   individualshave   greater   consistency   within   theirself-conceptsaswell   as   greater   authenticityin   general[40].Furthermore,Galinsky et    al.   [41]   demonstrated   thatexperimentalmanipulationsof    highpower   —   forinstance,viaexperientialandsemanticpriming   or   roleassignment—   promotedcreativeideas   thatwere   lessinfluencedbyexamples   salientin   thepresentcontext,theexpressionof    attitudesthatwereless   conforming   tomajorityopinions,andconsistencywithone’sownsocial   valueorientations   (ratherthanbeing   influencedbytheopponent’sreputation).Inapplied   research,   for   example,   in   field   studies   of workingprofessionals,   high   power   professionals   weremorelikely   to   hold   onto   their   own   initial    judgments,discounting   advice   from   others   [42,43  ].   Tost   et    al.   [44]further   found   that   whereas   individuals   of    neutral   andlowerpower   weigh   advice   from   experts   more   heavilythanadvice   from   novices,   high   power   individualsdiscounted   advice   from   both   experts   and   novices.   Andinthe   brain,   participants   primed   with   high   power   showedlowerlevels   of    motor   resonance   —   the   activation   of similarbrain   networks   when   watching   anotherindividual’sbehavior   —   which   suggests   that   powerreducesthe   tendency   to   mirror   others,   asign   of    theinattention   to   others,   an   important   element   of    any   socialcontext[45].   In   contrast,   powerlessness   has   been   found   toleadto   paying   more   attention   to   one’s   social   environment.Forexample,   those   experiencing   reduced   power   havebeenfound   to   be   more   attuned   to   the   suffering   anddistressof    others   in   face-to-face   interactions,   to   be   moreinfluenced   by   an   opponent’s   anger   in   negotiations,   to   bemoremotivated   to   produce   positive   impressions   in   theeyesof    others,   and   to   consider   situational   outcomes   whenmakingmoral    judgments   [5,46–48]. Elevated   power   was   alsoassociatedwith   disinhibitedand,   at   times,even   unethicalbehavior[49  ].   Thosewithagreater   senseof    power   —   bothas   measuredandprimed—   weremore   likelyto   display   risky   behavior[8].Elevated   power   —   as   measured   in   theworkplace,primedwith   a   recall   task,   or   assigned   in   alaboratoryexperiment   —   alsoincreased   self-servingfinancialinvestmentdecisionsunder   moral   hazard,   and   displaysofaggression   when   feeling   incompetent[50,51]. Furthermore,asurveyof    1561   professionals   revealedthatelevated   power   is   associatedwithincreasedinfidelity   in   bothmenandwomen,   dueto   greaterconfidencein   one’sability   to   attractpotentialpartners[52].In   a   similar   vein,   powerful   individuals   werealsomore   likelyto   display   sexualized   behaviorinface-to-face   interactions   [13].Thesebehavioral   tendencies   of    powerful   individualswerereflected   in   studies   of    social   perception   such   that,inresearch   by   Van   Kleef    et    al.   [53],   individuals   whoviolated   norms   —   taking   another   person’s   coffee,violatingrules   of    bookkeeping,   dropping   cigarette   ashes,andputting   their   feet   on   the   table   —   were   perceived   asmorepowerful.   It   would   seem   that   social   perceiversascribepower   to   those   who   behave   in   trait-consistent,disinhibitedfashion.   Ironically,   powerful   individualswereactually   stricter    judges   of    the   moral   transgressionsofother   individuals,   as   compared   to   when    judging   one’sownmoral   transgressions,   which   speaks   to   the   moralhypocrisythat   often   accompanies   elevated   power   [54].Andfinally,   the   greater   sense   of    power   was   foundtoexplain   why   upper   class   individuals   tend   to   engage   inmoreunethical   behavior   [55].This   review   reveals   fairly   consistent   support   andimaginativeextensions   of    four   main   propositions   of approach-inhibitiontheory.   It   will   be   intriguing   to   seehowthe   next   20   years   of    the   scientific   study   of    powerbuildupon   and   require   revision   of    the   early   claims   of approach-inhibitiontheory. Conflictofintereststatement Nothing   declared. Referencesandrecommendedreading Papersofparticularinterest,publishedwithintheperiodofreview,havebeenhighlightedas  ofspecialinterest  ofoutstandinginterest1.KeltnerD,GruenfeldDH,AndersonC: Power,approach,andinhibition . PsycholRev  2003, 110 :265-284.2.AndersonC,BerdahlJL: Theexperienceofpower:examiningtheeffectsofpoweronapproachandinhibitiontendencies .  J PersSocPsychol  2002, 83 :1362-1377http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.83.6.1362.3.LangnerCA,KeltnerD: Socialpowerandemotionalexperience:actorandpartnereffectswithindyadicinteractions .  JExpSocPsychol  2008, 44 :848-856.4.BerdahlJL,MartoranaP: Effectsofpoweronemotionandexpressionduringacontroversialgroupdiscussion .   EurJSocPsychol  2006, 36 :497-509.5.VanKleefGA,OveisC,VanDerLo ¨ we   I,LuoKoganA,GoetzJ,KeltnerD: Power,distress,andcompassion:turningablindeyetothesufferingofothers . PsycholSci  2008, 19 :1315-1322.6.VanKleefGA,OveisC,HomanAC,vanderLo ¨ we   I,KeltnerD: Powergetsyouhigh:thepowerfularemoreinspiredby themselvesthanbyothers . SocPsycholPersonalSci  2015, 6 :472-480.7.  VanKleefGA,LangeJ: Howhierarchyshapesouremotionallives:effectsofpowerandstatusonemotionalexperience,expression,andresponsiveness .   CurrOpinPsychol  2019, 33 :148-153.Thisreview,alsoincludedinthecurrentissue,providesanupdatedempiricaloverviewofhowpowerinfluencesemotioninparticular.8. AndersonC,GalinskyAD: Power,optimism,andrisk-taking . Eur  JSocPsychol  2006, 36 :511-536.9.FastNJ,SivanathanN,MayerND,GalinskyAD: Powerandoverconfidentdecision-making .   OrganBehavHumDecisProcess 2012, 117 :249-260.10.InesiME: Powerandlossaversion .   OrganBehavHumDecisProcess 2010, 112 :58-69. 198   Power,   status   and   hierarchy  CurrentOpinioninPsychology  2020, 33 :196–200www.sciencedirect.com  11.ManerJK,GailliotMT,ButzDA,PerucheBM: Power,risk,andthestatusquo:doespowerpromoteriskierormoreconservativedecisionmaking? PersSocPsycholBull  2007, 33 :451-462.12.BoksemMA,SmoldersR,CremerDD: Socialpowerandapproach-relatedneuralactivity  . SocCognAffectNeurosci  2009, 7 :516-520.13.KunstmanJW,ManerJK: Sexualoverperception:power,matingmotives,andbiasesinsocialjudgment .  JPersSocPsychol  2011, 100 :282-294.14.GuinoteA: Powerandgoalpursuit .   PersSocPsycholBull  2007, 33 :1076-1087.15.  GuinoteA: Howpoweraffectspeople:activating,wanting,andgoalseeking .  AnnuRevPsychol  2017, 68 :353-381.Thispaperreviewssocialpsychology,neuroscience,management,andanimalresearchfromasociocognitiveapproachandprovidesaninte-gratedframeworkofpowerasanintensifierofgoal-directedtendencies.16.GuinoteA: Poweraffectsbasiccognition:increasedattentionalinhibitionandflexibility  .  JExpSocPsychol  2007, 43 :685-697.17.SlabuL,Guinote    A:   Gettingwhat    youwant:powerincreasestheaccessibilityofactive   goals .  JExpSocPsychol    2010, 46 :344-349.18.SmithPK,JostmannNB,   GalinskyAD,VanDijkWW:   Lackingpower   impairs   executivefunctions .   PsycholSci  2008, 19 :441-447.19.DeWallCN,BaumeisterRF,MeadNL,VohsKD: Howleadersself-regulatetheirtaskperformance:evidencethatpowerpromotesdiligence,depletion,anddisdain .    JPersSocPsychol  2011, 100 :47-65.20.RuckerDD,GalinskyAD: Conspicuousconsumptionversusutilitarianideals:howdifferentlevelsofpowershapeconsumerbehavior .    JPersSocPsychol  2009, 45 :549-555.21.GruenfeldDH,InesiME,MageeJC,GalinskyAD: Powerandtheobjectificationofsocialtargets .    JPersSocPsychol  2008, 95 :111-127.22.LammersJ,StapelDA: Powerincreasesdehumanization . GroupProcessIntergroupRelat  2011, 14 :113-126.23.ManerJK,MeadNL: Theessentialtensionbetweenleadershipandpower:whenleaderssacrificegroupgoalsforthesakeofself-interest .  JPersSocPsychol  2010, 99 :482-497.24.  GreerLL,VanBunderenL,YuS: Thedysfunctionsofpowerinteams:areviewandemergentconflictperspective .   ResOrganBehav  2017, 37 :103-124.Thispaperintegratesempiricalfindings—acrossdifferentlevelsof analysis—toprovideanoverviewofwhenandwhythepositiveeffectsofpower(forindividuals)ironicallyleadtothepotentiallynegativeeffectsofpowerongroupoutcomes.25.WeickM,GuinoteA: Whensubjectiveexperiencesmatter:powerincreasesrelianceontheeaseofretrieval .    JPersSocPsychol  2008, 94 :956-970.26.WeickM,GuinoteA: Howlongwillittake?Powerbiasestimepredictions .  JPersSocPsychol  2010, 46 :595-604.27.SmithPK,TropeY:  Youfocusontheforestwhenyou’reinchargeofthetrees:powerprimingandabstractinformationprocessing .  JPersSocPsychol  2006, 90 :578-596.28.SmithPK,WigboldusDH,DijksterhuisAP:  Abstractthinkingincreasesone’ssenseofpower .  JExpSocPsychol  2008, 44 :378-385.29.GuinoteA,PhillipsA: Powercanincreasestereotyping .   SocPsychol  2010.30.GuinoteA,WillisGB,MartellottaC: Socialpowerincreasesimplicitprejudice .    JExpSocPsychol  2010, 46 :299-307.31.SimpsonB,MarkovskyB,SteketeeM: Powerandtheperceptionofsocialnetworks . SocNetw 2011, 33 :166-171.32.GalinskyAD,MageeJC,InesiME,GruenfeldDH: Powerandperspectivesnottaken .   PsycholSci  2006, 17 :1068-1074.33.GonzagaGC,KeltnerD,WardD: Powerinmixed-sexstrangerinteractions . CognEmotion 2008, 22 :1555-1568.34.SmithPK,BarghJA: Nonconsciouseffectsofpoweronbasicapproachandavoidancetendencies . SocCogn 2008, 26 :1-24.35.LammersJ,StokerJI,StapelDA: Powerandbehavioralapproachorientationinexistingpowerrelationsandthemediatingeffectofincome .   EurJSocPsychol  2010, 40 :543-551.36.LammersJ,StokerJI,StapelDA: Differentiatingsocialandpersonalpower:oppositeeffectsonstereotyping,butparalleleffectsonbehavioralapproachtendencies . PsycholSci  2009, 20 :1543-1548.37.NarayananJ,TaiK,KiniasZ: Powermotivatesinterpersonalconnectionfollowingsocialexclusion .   OrganBehavHumDecisProcess 2013, 122 :257-265.38.CookJE,ArrowH,MalleBF: Theeffectoffeeling   stereotypedonsocialpowerand   inhibition .   Pers   SocPsycholBull    2011, 37 :165-180.39.Co ˆ te´  S,   KrausMW,ChengBH,OveisC,VanderLo ¨ weI,LianH,KeltnerD: Socialpowerfacilitatestheeffectofprosocialorientationonempathicaccuracy  .    JPersSocPsychol  2011, 101 :217-232.40.KrausMW,Chen   S,KeltnerD: Thepowertobeme:powerelevatesself-conceptconsistencyandauthenticity  .    JExpSocPsychol  2011, 47 :974-980.41.GalinskyAD,MageeJC,GruenfeldDH,WhitsonJA,LiljenquistKA: Powerreducesthe   pressofthesituation:implicationsforcreativity,conformity,anddissonance .  JPersSocPsychol  2008, 95 :1450-1466.42.SeeKE,MorrisonEW,RothmanNB,SollJB: Thedetrimentaleffectsofpoweronconfidence,advicetaking,andaccuracy  . OrganBehavHumDecisProcess 2011, 116 :272-285.43.  DeWitFR,ScheepersD,EllemersN,SassenbergK,SchollA: Whetherpowerholdersconstruetheirpowerasresponsibility oropportunityinfluencestheirtendencytotakeadvicefromothers .  JOrganBehav  2017, 38 :923-949.Thispaperprovidesanuancedunderstandingofthelinkbetweenpowerandtakingadvicefromothersbydemonstratingthatpowerholders’tendencytotakeadvicefromothersincreaseswhentheyconstruetheirpowerasaresponsibility(ratherthanopportunity).44.TostLP,GinoF,LarrickRP: Power,competitiveness,andadvicetaking:whythepowerfuldon’tlisten . OrganBehavHumDecisProcess 2012, 117 :53-65.45.HogeveenJ,InzlichtM,ObhiSS: Powerchangeshowthebrainrespondstoothers .  JExpPsycholGen 2014, 143 :755-762http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033477.46.LammersJ,StapelDA: Howpowerinfluencesmoralthinking .  JPersSocPsychol  2009, 97 :279-289.47.VanKleefGA,DeDreuCK,PietroniD,MansteadAS: Powerandemotioninnegotiation:powermoderatestheinterpersonaleffectsofangerandhappinessonconcessionmaking .   Eur  JSocPsychol  2006, 36 :557-581.48.DeDreuCK,VanKleefGA: Theinfluenceofpowerontheinformationsearch,impressionformation,anddemandsinnegotiation .  JExpSocPsychol  2004, 40 :303-319.49.  KennedyJA,AndersonC: Hierarchicalrankandprincipleddissent:howholdinghigherranksuppressesobjectiontounethicalpractices .   OrganBehavHumDecisProcess 2017, 139 :30-49.Thisrecentresearchcaptureshowhigher-rankindividualsaremorelikelytoseeunethicalpracticesasethical,andthusarelesslikelytoengageinprincipleddissent.50.FastNJ,ChenS: Whenthebossfeelsinadequate:power,incompetence,andaggression . PsycholSci  2009, 20 :1406-1413.51.PitesaM,ThauS: Mastersoftheuniverse:howpowerandaccountabilityinfluenceself-servingdecisionsundermoralhazard .  JApplPsychol  2013, 98 :550-558. Power,   approach,   and   inhibition   Cho   and   Keltner   199 www.sciencedirect.com CurrentOpinioninPsychology  2020, 33 :196–200  52.LammersJ,StokerJI,JordanJ,PollmannM,StapelDA: Powerincreasesinfidelityamongmenandwomen .   PsycholSci  2011, 22 :1191-1197.53.Van   Kleef    GA,Homan    AC,   FinkenauerC,Gu ¨ ndemir   S,StamkouE: Breakingtherulestorisetopower:hownormviolatorsgainpowerintheeyesof   others . Soc   Psychol    Personal    Sci  2011,   2 :500-507.54.   LammersJ,StapelDA,GalinskyAD: Powerincreaseshypocrisy:moralizinginreasoning,immoralityinbehavior .   PsycholSci  2010, 21 :737-744.55.DuboisD,RuckerDD,GalinskyAD: Socialclass,power,andselfishness:whenandwhyupperandlowerclassindividualsbehaveunethically  .    JPersSocPsychol  2015, 108 :436-449. 200   Power,   status   and   hierarchy  CurrentOpinioninPsychology  2020, 33 :196–200www.sciencedirect.com
Search
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x