英语原文共 10 页，剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

Power and behavioral approach orientation in existing power relations and the mediating effect of income

JORIS LAMMERS1, JANKA I. STOKER， DIEDERIK A. STAPEL

Abstract

A large number of authors have observed that the experience of power increases behavioral approach tendencies. There are however some important unresolved problems. Predominantly, the literature relies on lab manipulations, priming, and student populations. This has resulted in low face validity. Also, it is unclear what process underlies this effect. A largescale survey (Nfrac14;3082) reliably measures power among real low- and high-power employees in existing organizations and finds strong support for the effect of power on behavioral approach. Consistent with expectations, this effect is mediated by increased access to resources. We also discuss findings that suggest the shape of this power-approach effect might be quadratic. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley amp; Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

We live in a world with tremendous power differences. The political power of most people is limited to the opportunity to vote once every few years. Yet presidents can declare war or peace and otherwise affect the fate of millions. In the economic domain, the power of most people is restricted to deciding between product A or product B. CEOs, however, can move companies across the globe and hire or fire thousands. Lastly, most people frequently or infrequently have discussions with friends and colleagues in which they try to share their view on politics. Yet media tycoons can reach millions with their TV stations and newspapers. Our world is largely ruled by a powerful few (Mills, 1956). Because power plays such an important role, psychologist have long studied how power differences affect us (e.g. Fiske, 1993; Kipnis, 1972, 1976; Thibaut amp; Kelley, 1959). One branch of research has focused on the simple and basic question: How does the possession (versus lack) of power affect basic patterns of behavior and cognition? A theory that recently has been put forward to explain such basic effects of power on behavior is Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Andersonrsquo;s (2003) model, which holds that feelings of high power lead to an approach orientation, while low power leads to an inhibition orientation. An approach orientation is associated with assertive behavior toward rewards and things that are desired, while an inhibition orientation is associated with behavior aimed at avoiding negative things such as punishments and threats (see Carver amp; White, 1994). Although Keltnerrsquo;s model has received strong direct empirical support (Anderson amp; Berdahl, 2002; Smith amp; Bargh, 2008) and has proven to be a good predictor of a wide variety of behaviors (e.g. Anderson amp; Galinsky, 2006; Galinsky, Gruenfeld, amp; Magee, 2003; Gruenfeld, Inesi, Magee, amp; Galinsky, 2008; Magee, Galinsky, amp; Gruenfeld, 2007; Smith, Jostmann, Galinsky, amp; Van Dijk, 2008), there remain a number of important concerns.

Four Concerns with Existing Literature

Validity

A first concern regards the validity of the methods that are typically employed to study the effects of power, in connection with the frequent use of students as participants. By far the most popular method to study power consists of priming student populations with the experience (Galinsky et al., 2003) or the concept (Chen, Lee-Chai, amp; Bargh, 2001) of high or low power. For example, an often used paradigm requires participants to write about an experience of high or low power. It is assumed that thus the feeling associated with previous experiences of power resurfaces and influences the participant in a similar manner as real power experiences (Galinsky et al., 2003). An obvious problem, however, is that most students have little or no experience with power. Their experience with power will typically be limited to rather mundane and non significant incidents, such as babysitting or student club committee work. Consequently, when these students are primed with their personal experience or association with power, these rather trivial expressions of power come to mind.1

Another popular method to study power measures a lsquo;lsquo;personal sense of powerrsquo;rsquo; with items such as lsquo;lsquo;I can get people to listen to what I sayrsquo;rsquo; (Anderson amp; Galinsky, 2006). Based on these items, it seems likely that this scale also commonly assesses similar inconsequential, petty forms of social influence. People influence each other in many different ways. Perhaps Anarsquo;s preference for what to eat for dinner is generally followed more often, while Pam usually determines what music to play or which club to go to. Such petty forms of social influence probably even work largely unconscious. Yet it is debatable whether we can equate such petty examples of social influence with power (Lukes, 1974). At least, there is a discrepancy with what most people call power: The more significant structural influence exercised by politicians, generals, and managers. From an applied psychological perspective, such latter expressions of power may be more interesting.

Admittedly, these concerns are less serious in studies that use role manipulations of power. In such manipulations, high power participants are asked to play the role of superior, meaning that they can reward another student with a small amount of money (e.g. Anderson amp; Berdahl, 2002; Smith et al., 2008). Although such manipulations are closer to what we generally understand with the word power, the effect of such manipulations still depends on how participants (often students) construe their role. That is, it depends on how people without personal experience with power believe a superior should behave or think the experimenter wants them to behav

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[236586]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word