No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Power Affects Performance When the Pressure Is On: Evidence for Low-Power Threat and High-Power Lift
Abstract
The current research examines how power affects performance in pressure-filled contexts. We present low-power-threat and high-power-lift effects, whereby performance in high-stakes situations suffers or is enhanced depending on one's power; that is, the power inherent to a situational role can produce effects similar to stereotype threat and lift. Three negotiations experiments demonstrate that role-based power affects outcomes but only when the negotiation is diagnostic of ability and, therefore, pressure-filled. We link these outcomes conceptually to threat and lift effects by showing that (a) role power affects performance more strongly when the negotiation is diagnostic of ability and (b) underperformance disappears when the low-power negotiator has an opportunity to self-affirm. These results suggest that stereotype threat and lift effects may represent a more general phenomenon: When the stakes are raised high, relative power can act as either a toxic brew (stereotype/low-power threat) or a beneficial elixir (stereotype/high-power lift) for performance.
© 2015 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
... Studies that have indirectly manipulated perceived competence underscore its role in performing under performance-contingent pressure. Kang et al. (2015) found that, when under pressure, business students assigned to seemingly higher ability roles demonstrated greater negotiation performance than those in lower ability roles. These performance differences disappeared under low pressure and after self-affirmations, suggesting perceived competence was particularly influential under pressure. ...
... Given feedback is a key source of competence information (Hattie, 2013;Kluger & DeNisi, 1996), we hypothesized that negative RFs would report lower perceived performance, lower adaptive motivation (specifically, reduced intrinsic motivation and higher amotivation; Guay et al., 2000), and higher anxiety (Eskreis-Winkler & Fishbach, 2019) than positive RFs. Moreover, given the theoretical (Bonner & Sprinkle, 2002;Deci & Ryan, 1985;Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) and empirical (Kang et al., 2015) links between perceived competence, deployment of cognitive resources, effort exertion, and cognitive performance, we hypothesized that negative RFs would demonstrate lower effort and performance than positive RFs. ...
... Still, average anxiety was below the scale's midpoint. Effects of RF on performance may manifest under higher stakes (e.g., personally relevant pressure; Kang et al., 2015), where pressure would likely be more threatening, and performance outcomes more sensitive, to the competence manipulation. ...
General Audience Summary
Performing under pressure can sometimes boost cognitive performance by increasing one’s motivation to exert more effort. Yet, it can also threaten cognitive performance by heightening anxiety, which can induce worries that consume the same limited cognitive resources that one needs to perform on cognitive tasks. One way to reconcile these perspectives is by considering the role of uncertainty during performance—specifically, how certain does one feel about their competencies on the task? Perceived competence information is often provided via feedback: Those who receive negative feedback often report feeling less motivated, more anxious, and more disengaged with a task—all of which predict lower cognitive performance. In this study, we considered the role of uncertainty via feedback information while participants completed cognitive tasks under performance pressure where they needed to achieve a certain score to obtain a reward for them and another participant. Throughout the study, we randomly assigned participants to receive relative feedback (RF) on their performance (i.e., bogus percentile rankings) that was either positive (e.g., ∼90th percentile) or negative (∼30th). Crucially, this means that we manipulated how participants perceived their competence incidentally, without directly indicating anything about their actual performance or their potential to meet the pressure goal. Compared to those receiving positive RF, we found that participants who received negative RF reported greater anxiety, lower adaptive and higher maladaptive types of motivation, lower perceptions of their performance, and more substantially misaligned perceptions of their performance, even though feedback did not change participants’ exerted effort or performance on the cognitive tasks. Prior research has shown that perceptions of competence have clear impacts on experiences and engagement during cognitive testing. Our findings add to this by underscoring its role in pressured settings and showing that these motivational and affective effects manifest independent of objective performance indices.
... Power works throughout the entire motivational process, from increasing goal setting, to early action, through to completion of the task (Guinote, 2007). Power is also especially beneficial under pressure with high stakes (Kang et al., 2015). Pike and Galinsky (2020) surmised that power releases the psychological brakes on action by (1) making failure seem less probable and feel less painful (2) decreasing the "downsides" of action, (3) shrouding the feelings and thoughts of others, (4) diminishing the perceived social costs of action, and (5) increasing greater goal focus by limiting goal-inhibiting distractions and focusing the mind on action. ...
... These findings emphasize the need to explore the immense importance of wider exogenous factors (such as accountability) when theorizing processes as complex as decision-making under uncertainty and the effect of social power. While it is a staple finding in the field that power increases approach motivations and improves decisionmaking (Kang et al., 2015), this study questioned the universal positive and approach effects of power and instead found that those with power were more avoidant, and indeed found decisions harder, especially when making decisions they had experience with (domain-specific). This study thus challenges the linear conceptualization of approach-inhibition theories of social power and proposes that, under certain conditions, power can lead to FFFS/BIS activation and avoidance tendencies. ...
Individuals in positions of power are often required to make high-stakes decisions. The approach-inhibition theory of social power holds that elevated power activates approach-related tendencies, leading to decisiveness and action orientation. However, naturalistic decision-making research has often reported that increased power often has the opposite effect and causes more avoidant decision-making. To investigate the potential activation of avoidance-related tendencies in response to elevated power, this study employed an immersive scenario-based battery of least-worst decisions (the Least-Worst Uncertain Choice Inventory for Emergency Responses; LUCIFER) with members of the United States Armed Forces. In line with previous naturalistic decision-making research on the effect of power, this research found that in conditions of higher power, individuals found decisions more difficult and were more likely to make an avoidant choice. Furthermore, this effect was more pronounced in domain-specific decisions for which the individual had experience. These findings expand our understanding of when, and in what contexts, power leads to approach vs. avoidant tendencies, as well as demonstrate the benefits of bridging methodological divides that exist between “in the lab” and “in the field” when studying high-uncertainty decision-making.
... Though affirming relational aptitude will be beneficial, its weak association with the threatened domain will result in weaker effects. Thus, the intellectual similarity in verbal ability, as opposed to relational affirmation, and completing a math-intensive task may produce confidence and efficacy that translates to improved math performance (Kang et al., 2015). ...
... It could be that providing affirmation provides a confidence boost that could result in performance boosts, regardless of the domain. For example, research has found that self-affirmation can help individuals perform better under high-stress situation, like negotiating (Kang et al., 2015). This future direction is especially worthy of investigation provided that affirmation is a relatively low-cost remedy to boost performance. ...
Research demonstrates that when math-based gender stereotypes are activated (e.g., men are better at math than women), women display comparatively poorer math performance than men, a phenomenon referred to as stereotype threat. We evaluated the effectiveness of two forms of self-affirmation in reducing the effects of stereotype threat on women’s math performance. Participants completed a math test under one of four conditions: control (no explicit stereotype activation), stereotype threat (activation of gender performance stereotype), or stereotype threat combined with one of two self-affirmation manipulations. Women in the affirmation conditions either read about women’s greater verbal or relational ability and were asked to write about why the trait is important to their self-concept. No omnibus effect of condition emerged though follow-up analyses revealed several notable findings. While we were unable to replicate stereotype threat effects, contrast analyses revealed that the combined performance of women in the two affirmation conditions was greater than the combined performance of women in the two no-affirmation conditions. Women in the relational affirmation condition performed descriptively greater than the combined performance of women in the other three conditions. These findings demonstrate how self-affirmation, particularly relational affirmation, may facilitate women’s mathematics problem-solving, independent of stereotype threat activation.
... Indeed, representatives are thought to be vital in helping teams communicate with their counterpart, promoting their team's interests, and effectively exchanging and disseminating information within their own team (Druckman et al., 1972;Mosterd & Rutte, 2000). Likewise, research on power differences in negotiations (Mannix & Neale, 1993;Overbeck & Kim, 2013;Schaerer et al., 2020) shows that more powerful negotiators are motivated to better represent their parties in procuring valuable resources (Kang et al., 2015), implying that teams with a power differentiated structure would negotiate more effectively. ...
... Ineffective coordination and communication between teams are commonly identified as problems within the interteam context that may be limiting cross-team collaboration. Whereas extant theory and research highlights the potential benefits associated with hierarchical team structures in complex interteam settings (i.e., they can enable more coordinated interactions between teams [e.g., Davison et al., 2012] or help teams to promote their interests when communicating with their counterpart [e.g., Kang et al., 2015]), the present research shows that hierarchical team structures also undermine joint gain in integrative negotiations between teams. Our findings indicate that formal hierarchical differentiation within negotiating teams does indeed exert influence on the processes and outcomes of interteam negotiations, but not in a manner which helps teams integrate their interests with one another. ...
Although teams of negotiators are widely assumed to be better at
unlocking integrative solutions than individual negotiators, the interteam negotiation context is characterized by unique challenges which can make effective collaboration between teams difficult. We extend our theoretical understanding of interteam negotiations by offering novel insights about when and why teams realize their potential in integrative negotiations. Specifically, we propose a theoretical model that explains how hierarchical team structures reduce information elaboration within teams, which reinforces “fixed-pie” assumptions that prompt the reliance on value claiming behaviors between teams and lower high-quality outcomes such as the joint gain achieved. Across four studies, each involving interactive team-on-team negotiations, we provide support for the hypothesized effects of formal intrateam hierarchies on joint gain, and test a useful intervention to mitigate the harmful effects of hierarchically structured teams at the negotiation table. Contributions to the literatures on team negotiations, interteam collaboration, and hierarchical differences within teams are discussed.
... Indeed, representatives are thought to be vital in helping teams communicate with their counterpart, promoting their team's interests, and effectively exchanging and disseminating information within their own team (Druckman et al., 1972;Mosterd & Rutte, 2000). Likewise, research on power differences in negotiations (Mannix & Neale, 1993;Overbeck & Kim, 2013;Schaerer et al., 2020) shows that more powerful negotiators are motivated to better represent their parties in procuring valuable resources (Kang et al., 2015), implying that teams with a power differentiated structure would negotiate more effectively. ...
... Ineffective coordination and communication between teams are commonly identified as problems within the interteam context that may be limiting cross-team collaboration. Whereas extant theory and research highlights the potential benefits associated with hierarchical team structures in complex interteam settings (i.e., they can enable more coordinated interactions between teams [e.g., Davison et al., 2012] or help teams to promote their interests when communicating with their counterpart [e.g., Kang et al., 2015]), the present research shows that hierarchical team structures also undermine joint gain in integrative negotiations between teams. Our findings indicate that formal hierarchical differentiation within negotiating teams does indeed exert influence on the processes and outcomes of interteam negotiations, but not in a manner which helps teams integrate their interests with one another. ...
... Les capacités mnésiques ainsi que certaines fonctions exécutives de haut niveau sont elles aussi modulées par la hiérarchie. Concernant les fonctions exécutives, il a été montré que le sentiment d'avoir du pouvoir, ou un statut élevé, facilite l'appréhension des situations stressantes, notamment celles pour lesquelles le niveau de pression et les enjeux sont élevés, comme lors d'un entretien d'embauche (Cuddy, Wilmuth, & Carney, 2012;Kang, Galinsky, Kray, & Shirako, 2015). En induisant une posture de dominance ou de subordination (voir des exemples dans la section II.2.1, p. 29) pendant seulement une minute avant un entretien factice, Cuddy et al. (2012) ont observé que les participants ayant adopté la posture d'un dominant étaient plus enthousiastes, que leurs propos étaient présentés avec plus de confiance lors de l'entretien, et que le contenu de leur présentation était plus clair, plus élaboré et mieux structuré. ...
... Dans une précédente étude (Carney, Cuddy, & Yap, 2010), cette même équipe de recherche avait montré qu'une brève mise en situation similaire augmentait le niveau de confiance en soi et la tolérance à la prise de risque. L'expérience de Kang et al. (2015) reprend le contexte d'un d'entretien d'embauche, au cours duquel deux participants, l'un dans le rôle du recruteur (haut-statut) et l'autre dans le rôle du candidat au poste (basstatut), doivent parvenir à un accord sur différents points du contrat (salaire, primes, congés, etc.). Les participants ayant tenu le rôle du recruteur ont davantage réussi à faire pencher la négociation à leur avantage que ceux tenant le rôle du candidat. ...
Ma thèse porte sur une dimension fondamentale de la structure des groupes sociaux : lahiérarchie. Chez l’être humain, les hiérarchies sociales régissent en profondeur lesinteractions. Pour naviguer avec succès dans son environnement, il doit être en mesure derepérer précisément les positions hiérarchiques des autres membres de son groupe. Cetravail de thèse vise à caractériser certains mécanismes neuronaux, comportementaux etphysiologiques impliqués dans l’analyse d’un indice hiérarchique. Pour préciser la nature dutraitement de la hiérarchie, j’ai exploré son influence sur différentes étapes de la perceptiondes visages. Je me suis tout d’abord intéressée au décours temporel du traitement neuronaldes visages dans un contexte hiérarchique. Deux études menées en électroencéphalographiem’ont permis d’identifier les potentiels neuronaux et les composants oscillatoires évoquéspar la perception de visages associés soit, à un rang hiérarchique établi à l’issue d’unecompétition, soit à un statut social induit par la profession. Une étude réalisée ensuite enoculométrie avait pour but de capturer l’influence de la hiérarchie sur des mécanismes fins ducontrôle de l’attention visuelle. J’ai étudié à la fois l’exploration visuelle de classementshiérarchiques incluant le participant, et celle de visages associés à des rangs hiérarchiquesdifférents. Enfin, j’ai tenté de déterminer si un signal ou une situation d’asymétriehiérarchique véhicule une valence émotionnelle et motivationnelle non neutre susceptibled’induire des variations de certains paramètres physiologiques, comme le rythme cardiaqueou la réponse électrodermale.
... Les capacités mnésiques ainsi que certaines fonctions exécutives de haut niveau sont elles aussi modulées par la hiérarchie. Concernant les fonctions exécutives, il a été montré que le sentiment d'avoir du pouvoir, ou un statut élevé, facilite l'appréhension des situations stressantes, notamment celles pour lesquelles le niveau de pression et les enjeux sont élevés, comme lors d'un entretien d'embauche (Cuddy, Wilmuth, & Carney, 2012;Kang, Galinsky, Kray, & Shirako, 2015). En induisant une posture de dominance ou de subordination (voir des exemples dans la section II.2.1, p. 29) pendant seulement une minute avant un entretien factice, Cuddy et al. (2012) ont observé que les participants ayant adopté la posture d'un dominant étaient plus enthousiastes, que leurs propos étaient présentés avec plus de confiance lors de l'entretien, et que le contenu de leur présentation était plus clair, plus élaboré et mieux structuré. ...
... Dans une précédente étude (Carney, Cuddy, & Yap, 2010), cette même équipe de recherche avait montré qu'une brève mise en situation similaire augmentait le niveau de confiance en soi et la tolérance à la prise de risque. L'expérience de Kang et al. (2015) reprend le contexte d'un d'entretien d'embauche, au cours duquel deux participants, l'un dans le rôle du recruteur (haut-statut) et l'autre dans le rôle du candidat au poste (basstatut), doivent parvenir à un accord sur différents points du contrat (salaire, primes, congés, etc.). Les participants ayant tenu le rôle du recruteur ont davantage réussi à faire pencher la négociation à leur avantage que ceux tenant le rôle du candidat. ...
Hierarchy is a key organizational feature of social groups. In order to successfully navigate their social environment, humans must precisely read the hierarchical position of other during social interaction. This present thesis intends to characterize the neural correlates as well as the early physiological and behavioral mechanisms involved in the processing of social rank. The influence of hierarchy was mainly investigated in the context of face perception. To begin, my focus was on the time course of neuronal processing of faces embedded in a hierarchical context. Using eletroencephalography in two studies, it has been possible to identify evoked neuronal potentials and oscillatory components in response to faces varying in hierarchical rank, established through competition or social status induced by profession. The next study used eye-tracking methodology to explore the influence of hierarchy on the subtle mechanisms of visual attention control. I aimed at characterizing the visual scanning pattern of hierarchical rankings (during a competition) and of faces associated with different hierarchical ranks. Finally, I tried to determine if a hierarchical signal or a social asymmetrical situation conveyed an emotional/motivational valence. During face perception and a minimal social interaction, I examined if this particular dimension of hierarchy generated variations of physiological activity, such as heart rate and skin conductance response.
... Power is the relative capacity to influence others by providing valuable resources or punishment (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). Unlike the past view that power corrupts, an increasing amount of research has indicated the protective function of power against threat and stress (e.g., Bombari, Schmid Mast, & Bachmann, 2017;Inesi, 2010;Kang, Galinsky, Kray, & Shirako, 2015;Scheepers, de Wit, Ellemers, & Sassenberg, 2012). Regarding social stress, on the one hand, power increases the efficiency of the heart's functioning when facing social stress (Scheepers et al., 2012), and improves an individual's performance (Kang et al., 2015) as well as their nonverbal presence (Cuddy, Wilmuth, Yap, & Carney, 2015) when under pressure, which then promote others' (including an interviewer or a bystander) evaluations of them (Lammers, Dubois, Rucker, & Galinsky, 2013). ...
... Unlike the past view that power corrupts, an increasing amount of research has indicated the protective function of power against threat and stress (e.g., Bombari, Schmid Mast, & Bachmann, 2017;Inesi, 2010;Kang, Galinsky, Kray, & Shirako, 2015;Scheepers, de Wit, Ellemers, & Sassenberg, 2012). Regarding social stress, on the one hand, power increases the efficiency of the heart's functioning when facing social stress (Scheepers et al., 2012), and improves an individual's performance (Kang et al., 2015) as well as their nonverbal presence (Cuddy, Wilmuth, Yap, & Carney, 2015) when under pressure, which then promote others' (including an interviewer or a bystander) evaluations of them (Lammers, Dubois, Rucker, & Galinsky, 2013). On the other hand, power not only decreases an individual's negative emotions (Bombari et al., 2017) and loss aversion (Inesi, 2010), but also increases the individual's perceived positive attitudes from others (Anderson & Berdahl, 2002). ...
To directly examine why an individual's capacity to influence others by providing valued resources (i.e., power) could decrease the concerns about negative evaluation from others (i.e., the fear of negative evaluation, FNE) in daily life, two studies were conducted. Results found that perceived power (Study 1) was associated with lower FNE, and manipulating power levels (Study 2) caused less FNE. Furthermore, results indicate that personal control belief mediated this link. These findings provide empirical evidence of the underlying mechanism of the effect of power on reducing FNE. The current research contributes significantly because it sheds light on how power transferred from a person's "external world" to their "internal world" (i.e., personal control belief) can influence their cognition and behavior.
... Along with status, which describes the possession of attributes that are valued by others, power underpins the vertical dimension of social relations (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Relative to low power individuals, high power individuals experience less fear of being evaluated by others (Schmid & Schmid Mast, 2013) and thrive when the going gets tough (Kang, Galinsky, Kray, & Shirako, 2015), presumably because they are challenged, not threatened (Scheepers, de Wit, Ellemers, & Sassenberg, 2012). Conversely, low power individuals, relative to high power individuals, are more inclined to experience anxiety and distress (Chorpita & Barlow, 1998;Price, 1967) and are more keenly aware of constraints (Weick & Guinote, 2010;Whitson et al., 2013), triggering vigilance and caution (e.g., Anderson & Galinsky, 2006;Weick, Guinote, & Wilkinson, 2011). ...
... The tendencies of high power individuals to reciprocate, and of low power individuals to complement, dominance displays may contribute to explain the link between power and improved performance in high-pressure contexts such as negotiations (Kang et al., 2015) or job interviews (Lammers, Dubois, Rucker, & Galinsky, 2013). 2 In this context, switching into an approach mode can benefit high power individuals, not least because others are likely to interpret (reciprocal) dominance displays as a sign of competence (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009). In this view, dominance complementarity and reciprocity may contribute to legitimize and reinforce hierarchical differentiation in societies or organizations that endorse meritocratic principles. ...
Sustained, direct eye-gaze—staring—is a powerful cue that elicits strong responses in many primate and non-primate species. The present research examined whether fleeting experiences of high and low power alter individuals’ spontaneous responses to the staring gaze of an onlooker. We report two experimental studies showing that sustained, direct gaze elicits spontaneous avoidance tendencies in low power perceivers, and spontaneous approach tendencies in high power perceivers. These effects emerged during interactions with different targets and when power was manipulated between-individuals (Study 1) and within individuals (Study 2), thus attesting to a high degree of flexibility in perceivers’ reactions to gaze cues. Together, the present findings indicate that power can break the cycle of complementarity in individuals’ spontaneous responding: low power perceivers complement and move away from, and high power perceivers reciprocate and move towards, staring onlookers.
... Negotiators' power is defined as their ability to influence the negotiation outcome in their favor (Galinsky et al., 2017;Schaerer et al., 2020). In job negotiations, managers typically have higher power than candidates (Anderson & Thompson, 2004;Kang et al., 2015) as they have greater ability to make decisions that candidates and employees are expected to oblige (Epitropaki et al., 2013;Sy, 2010). ...
... Adding further support is the Approach/Inhibition theory of power (Keltner et al., 2003), which argues that power directs the powerholder's attention toward rewards and activates the behavioral approach system. In addition to greater attention to rewards (Anderson & Berdahl, 2002) and action-orientation (Galinsky et al., 2003), these effects include positive affect (Berdahl & Martorana, 2006;Langner & Keltner, 2008), elevated perceptions of control and social support (Brion & Anderson, 2013;Fiske & Depret, 1996), increased confidence and performance (Fast, Halevy, et al., 2012;Kang et al., 2015), greater optimism (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006), enhanced selfesteem (Wojciszke & Struzynska-Kujalowicz, 2007), and a reduced concern about threat or loss Inesi, 2010). Such views of the world are important because they facilitate not only personal health and well-being, but also lead to more positive treatment of others (Carver et al., 2010;Donnellan et al., 2005). ...
... This affirms Epson et al. (2005) study on positive affirmations as having positive effects, subsequent behavior and promotes acceptance, thus, improving physical and mental health which is a major area in focusing towards making one's life better. Moreover, Kang et al., (2015) validated in their study the self-affirmation as a help to level the playing field and effectively reduce the power differences. She said that anyone has the potential to do really well. ...
A group of Filipino seminarians (experimental group) had an intervention of Positive thoughts enhancement and Interpersonal skills developed by the researcher (11 modules) tailored fit for a Filipino culture seminarians and another group of Filipino seminarians (controlled group) had a normal setting lecture of formation. A pre-test and posttest of the seminarians’ psychosocial development with a Psychosocial Development measurement tool (The Modified Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory - MEPSI) was used to find out if there was an efficacy of the intervention. The posttest result of the experimental group was significantly higher than those of the control group which indicated that the intervention program (Positive Affirmation Skills Intervention – (PASI) was effective on the Psychosocial Development of the Seminarians. An incremental increase in the scores of the experimental group after exposure in the intervention and the participants in the experimental group experienced not only an enhancement of their psychosocial development attributes but had a high level of self-depth as compared to the control group which made an impact on their psychosocial development characteristics and attributes.
... However, in many of these domains, agents are unequal in their power to affect the outcome [9]. On the other hand, personal social power is equivalent to the concept of autonomy [92]. Hence, power is fundamental to developing intelligent autonomous social agents. ...
Social Power, the potential for social influence, is a pervasive social process in human-human interactions. Despite its acknowledged role in social interaction, little attention has been paid to this phenomenon in human-agent interaction. One prominent example of social agents that have been of interest these days is the evolution of robotic agents. Further, with respect to robotic agents, limited studies have addressed social power in human-robot interactions.
Recent advances on Social Robotics raise the question of whether a social robot can be used as a persuasive agent. To date, different attempts have been performed using several approaches to tackle this research question. In a nutshell, the objective of the present work is empowering intelligent agents with social power dynamics to develop more rational agents and hence more persuasive. On the one hand, proper decision making facing social power increases the rationality of agents and hence enhances their believability. On the other hand, possessing sources of social power boosts their persuasibility.
In this text, we report the results of our recent advancements for this objective and draw
suggestions for future directions. In sum, we first approached the problem by conceptualizing social power inspired by a theory proposed by French and Raven. Then we performed different user-studies to investigate how different bases of social power contribute to the persuasiveness of social robots. In Study 1, within an adversarial setting, we programmed two robots with expert and reward social power. In particular, we programmed one robot to express expertise in its behavior by giving information to the users. Also, as a specific instance of reward, we used social rewards (telling a joke by the other robot). In the second study, a single robot was used to persuade the user using two different strategies (reward and coercion) comparing to a control condition. Finally, in the last study (Study 3), the robot used one power strategy (reward) but with different levels in different conditions, comparing to two control conditions with/without the presence of any robot. In this study, the persuasion attempt was repeated over a series of repeated interactions.
Overall, the results of our user studies endorse that social power (in particular reward, coercion, and expert bases) endows persuasiveness to social robots. And different persuasive strategies could be perceived and be preferred differently considering users’ profiles or the study conditions.
... We used an adapted version of the pharmaceutical factory paradigm used by Galinsky and Mussweiler (2001). This scenario is commonly used in research on distributive negotiations (e.g., Galinsky et al., 2005;Maaravi et al., 2011;Kang et al., 2015). ...
The behavioral decision-making and negotiations literature usually advocates a first-mover advantage, explained the anchoring and adjustment heuristic. Thus, buyers, who according to the social norm, tend to move second, strive to make the first offer to take advantage of this effect. On the other hand, negotiation practitioners and experts often advise the opposite, i.e., moving second. These opposite recommendations regarding first offers are termed the Practitioner-Researcher paradox. In the current article, we investigate the circumstances under which buyers would make less favorable first offers than they would receive were they to move second, focusing on low power and anxiety during negotiations. Across two studies, we manipulated negotiators' best alternative to the negotiated agreement (BATNA) and measured their anxiety. Our results show that, when facing neutral-power sellers, weak buyers who feel anxious would make inferior first offers (Studies 1 and 2). When facing low-power sellers, weak buyers would make inferior first offers across all anxiety levels (Study 2). Our findings shed light on two critical factors leading to the Practitioner-Researcher paradox: power and anxiety, and offer concrete guidelines to buyers who find themselves at low power and highly anxious during negotiations.
... The superior ability of power holders emerges particularly when the stakes or pressure are high (Kang, Galinsky, Kray, & Shirako, 2015). For example, in social evaluative contexts individuals with power performed better than individuals who do not have power (Schmid & Schmid Mast, 2013). ...
Philosophers, scientists, policymakers, and the public have questioned about who ascends to power and how power affects the person. This chapter reviews and discusses social–cognitive literature from the last decade or so that examines how dispositions and contextual factors affect the emergence of power and how having power affects the links between dispositions and behavior. Following a process-based perspective that contemplates the cognitive strategies of people in power, a model is proposed of power as a magnifier of the active self—that is, the subset of self-knowledge that is active on a moment-to-moment basis. The active self channels attention and action in line with priorities and plays a key role in action facilitation and goal-directed behavior. The active self is responsive to chronic dispositions, emotions, and current states of the person and to inputs from the environment in a flexible manner. Extant research is integrated based on this model.
... The present data highlight a domain in which power could lead to greater selfregulation in everyday life. These findings dovetail the many studies showing how power elevates performance in demanding lab-based tasks (e.g., DeWall et al., 2011;Guinote, 2007aGuinote, , 2007bKang, Galinsky, Kray & Shirako, 2015;Smith et al., 2008; but see Weick, Wilkinson, & Guinote, 2011), and suggest that the psychological benefits associated with having power may generalise to the regulation of one's feelings. ...
People who are good at regulating their feelings benefit from more desirable affective lives. Here we examine whether individual differences in chronic feelings of power are associated with regulatory efforts aimed at maintaining positive affect and ceasing negative affect. In Study 1, we found that people with a stronger (vs. weaker) sense of power were more inclined to cognitively re-frame (reappraise) and up-regulate (repair) their affective experiences, whilst also being less inclined to suppress their feelings. Drawing on affective experiences sampled repeatedly over a one-week period, in Study 2 we found that people with a stronger (vs. weaker) sense of power were more likely to cease their negative affect. However, a stronger (vs. weaker) sense of power was not associated with the likelihood to maintain positive affect. Together, the findings highlight a novel domain in which power may enhance self-regulation, and help explain how power differentials shape people’s affective and social lives.
... In negotiations, powerholders make the first move and enjoy a bargaining advantage [48]. This is especially so in high-pressure negotiations [49], such as job interviews [50]. ...
This article discusses evidence linking power to purpose: that of having an impact in the social environment and carrying out individual or collective aims and desires. First, it highlights the role of goals during the emergence and the exercise of power. Accordingly, it suggests that typical power's mission is to strive for social or personal objectives in social contexts. This includes social influence goals, organizational or personal agendas. Secondly, the article describes how power affects goal-related strategies and cognitive inclinations. Evidence suggests that power triggers prioritization and facilitates the pursuit of any salient goals, filtered by personal values and inclinations of the powerholder. Thirdly, the article examines powerholders' effectiveness of goal pursuit, including their performance on tangible social tasks. Finally, the article ends with a discussion on non-intended consequences of the power-goal links in particular in the social domain.
... Moreover, high-power-as-responsibility produced a (low) challenge response pattern somewhat similar to those low in power in Experiments 1b and 2-even though the perceived level of power (i.e., outcome control) between construal conditions did not differ. It may well be that construal alters other stress-buffering effects of power, beyond the cardiovascular patterns investigated here, such as hormonal reactions (Akinola & Mendes, 2014), well-being (Kifer et al., 2013), or performance boosts under pressure (Kang, Galinsky, Kray, Shirako, 2015;Schmid & Schmid-Mast, 2013). This remains an avenue for future studies. ...
Power usually lowers stress responses. In stressful situations, having high (vs. low) power heightens challenge and lowers threat. Yet, even power-holders may experience threat when becoming aware of the responsibility that accompanies their power. Power-holders can construe (i.e., understand) a high-power position primarily as opportunity to “make things happen” or as responsibility to “take care of things.” Power-holders construing power as responsibility (rather than opportunity) may be more likely to experience demands—such as taking care of important decisions under their control—as outweighing their resources, resulting in less challenge and more threat. Four experiments with subjective and cardiovascular threat-challenge indicators support this. Going beyond prior work on structural aspects (e.g., power instability) that induce stress, we show that merely the way how power-holders construe their power can evoke stress. Specifically, we find that power construed as responsibility (vs. opportunity) is more likely to imply a “burden” for the power-holder.
... In general, assertive strategies enabled negotiators to achieve better negotiated agreements in single-shot settings. For example, homeowners negotiating with house painters are likely to obtain a lower price if they start with a low initial offer (Ames & Mason, 2015;Loschelder et al., 2016;Mason, Lee, & Wiley, 2013;Schaerer, Swaab, & Galinsky, 2015), display negative emotions (Friedman et al., 2004;Van Kleef & De Dreu, 2010;Van Kleef, De Dreu, Pietroni, & Manstead, 2006), express aggression and power (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006;Kang, Galinsky, Kray, & Shirako, 2015;Magee, Galinsky, & Gruenfeld, 2007;Overbeck et al., 2010;Van Kleef et al., 2006), or have a reputation for being strict (Roth & Schoumaker, 1983). Of course, many cooperative strategies have also been linked with better economic outcomes, such as when negotiators approach the situation as a problem-solving task (Kilmann & Thomas, 1977;Pruitt, 1983), ask questions (Schweitzer & Croson, 1999), engage in perspective taking (Trötschel, Hüffmeier, Loschelder, Schwartz, & Gollwitzer, 2011), make concessions (Moran & Ritov, 2002;Ritov & Moran, 2008), display positive affect and cooperative signals (Anderson & Thompson, 2004;Filipowicz, Barsade, & Melwani, 2011;Friedman et al., 2004;Schroeder, Risen, Gino, & Norton, 2014;Shirako et al., 2015), engage in small talk (Morris, Nadler, Kurtzberg, & Thompson, 2002;Shaughnessy, Mislin, & Hentschel, 2015), or build relationships (Amanatullah & Morris, 2010;Brett et al., 2007;Drolet, Larrick, & Morris, 1998;Gelfand, Major, Raver, Nishii, & O'Brien, 2006;Tinsley, O'Connor, & Sullivan, 2002). ...
The negotiation process can harm post-agreement motivation. For example, a homeowner might negotiate with a landscaper, but through the process of negotiating harm the landscaper’s motivation to deliver high quality service. In contrast to prior work that has assumed that negotiated agreements represent the full economic value of negotiated outcomes, we demonstrate that the act of engaging in a negotiation can itself influence post-agreement behavior in ways that change the economic value of an agreement. Across six studies, we demonstrate that negotiations can harm post-agreement motivation and productivity on both effortful and creative tasks. Specifically, we find that wage negotiations can harm post-agreement performance, even when the negotiation has integrative potential or is conducted face-to-face. The negotiation process can increase perceptions of relational conflict, and these conflict perceptions mediate the relationship between negotiation and performance. Compared to not negotiating, individuals who negotiate may secure favorable deal terms, but risk incurring affective, relational, and economic costs after the agreement. Our investigation fills a critical gap in our understanding of post-agreement behavior, and has particular relevance for negotiations that involve services. Our findings suggest that individuals should enter negotiations with caution, and we call for future work to explore not only what happens prior to an agreement, but also what happens after an agreement has been reached.
... Future research may also further clarify the consequence of the power effect on reduced resource conflict for performance and goal attainment. Past research suggests that individuals who experience high-power perform better in many different tasks (Kang, Galinsky, Kray, & Shirako, 2015;Lammers, Dubois, Rucker, & Galinsky, 2013;Magee et al., 2007;Schmid, Kleiman, et al., 2015;Schmid & Schmid Mast, 2013;, including tasks that require multitasking (Cai & Guinote, 2017). Is this because the high-power participants experienced less conflict between their goals? ...
Power facilitates goal pursuit, but how does power affect the way people respond to conflict between their multiple goals? Our results showed that higher trait power was associated with reduced experience of conflict in scenarios describing multiple goals (Study 1) and between personal goals (Study 2). Moreover, manipulated low power increased individuals’ experience of goal conflict relative to high power and a control condition (Studies 3 & 4), with the consequence that they planned to invest less into the pursuit of their goals in the future. With its focus on multiple goals and individuals’ experiences during goal pursuit rather than objective performance, the present research uses new angles to examine power effects on goal pursuit.
... However, power does not always improve performance. Power is more beneficial under pressure and when stakes are higher (Kang et al. 2015). Power does not facilitate action and performance when power holders dislike tasks (DeWall et al. 2011). ...
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. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Psychology Volume 68 is January 03, 2017. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
... The superior ability of power holders emerges particularly when the stakes are high, such as when the pressure is high (Kang, Galinsky, Kray, & Shirako, 2015). For example, in social evaluative contexts individuals with power performed better than individuals who do not have power (Schmid & Schmid Mast, 2013). ...
This chapter presents a comprehensive, scholarly review on the effects of power on powerholders’ social judgments and behavior. Power is with no doubt a key concept that characterizes asymmetric social relations. The chapter does not only bring together the most important approaches to the understanding of what it means to be in a powerful position, but also proposes a very clear conclusion namely that power amplifies the active self of the powerholder, a self that is understood as situated and linked to the social context. Implications of this conclusion resonate that power may magnify problematic self-aspects such as tendencies to preserve ones power and to pay less attention to other’s needs compared to one’s own—tendencies that contribute to the maintenance and aggravation of social inequality beyond of what is acceptable. Yet what is magnified by power depends on what dominates in the person and in the contextualized situation, including the possible inclusion of others in the self and the possible endorsement of ideologies promoting equality.
... It is interesting to note that the effects of stereotype threat are reduced (or eliminated) after values-affirmation interventions (e.g., Derks, Scheepers, Van Laar, & Ellemers, 2011;Miyake et al., 2010). Although power and values-affirmation interventions are distinct and have been shown to lead to orthogonal states (Fast & Chen, 2009; see also Kang, Galinsky, Kray, & Shirako, 2015), it is possible that these similar downstream consequences emerge because both affect group identification. Whether or not values affirmations influence identification has not been examined to our knowledge, and it is an interesting question for future research in this domain. ...
We examine how feelings of power affect gender identification and the endorsement of sexism. Participants wrote essays about a time when they felt powerful or powerless (Studies 1–3) or about an event unrelated to power (Studies 2–3). Then, they reported how much they identified with their gender group. When primed with high power, women reported lower levels of gender identification, as compared to those primed with low power (Studies 1–2) and to a control condition (Studies 2–3). In Study 3, we also found that women primed with high power endorsed benevolent (but not hostile) sexism less than women in both the low power and control conditions (Study 3). Power had no impact on men's gender identification or sexism.
The present research investigates how the number of issues affects the quality of outcomes in terms of joint gains and impasse rates in integrative negotiations. In the literature, two opposing positions exist reflecting a complexity dilemma regarding the number of negotiation issues: One position suggests that complex negotiations involving higher numbers of issues offer more trade-off opportunities, thereby providing negotiators with greater structural flexibility in reaching mutually beneficial agreements, which improves outcome quality. The opposite position emphasizes that the greater information load inherent in negotiating more issues impedes outcome quality. We propose a third, intermediate position: Negotiating more issues may only improve outcome quality up to a threshold, above which adding further issues results in deteriorated outcomes. We tested these propositions using a quasi-meta-analytic technique by examining the associations between the number of issues, joint gains, and impasse rates across multiple empirical studies on integrative negotiations using various negotiation tasks with different numbers of issues (N = 38,063/21,271 negotiations for joint gains/impasse rates). Moreover, we investigated whether factors related to how negotiators subjectively deal with the increased complexity associated with higher numbers of issues moderate the number-of-issues effect on joint gains. Multilevel analyses revealed no significant number-of-issues effect on joint gains up to a threshold of 3 issues but a negative effect for negotiations involving more than 3 issues. By contrast, we did not find a number-of-issues effect on impasse rates. Moreover, we did not obtain evidence for moderation effects. Findings are discussed with respect to their theoretical and practical implications.
The popular maxim holds that power corrupts, and research to date supports the view that power increases self-interested unethical behavior. However, we predict the opposite effect when unethical behavior, specifically lying, helps an individual self-promote: lower rather than higher power increases self-promotional lying. Drawing from compensatory consumption theory, we propose that this effect occurs because lower power people feel less esteemed in their organizations than do higher power people. To compensate for this need to view themselves as esteemed members of their organizations, lower power individuals are more likely to inflate their accomplishments. Evidence from four studies supports our predictions: compared with those with higher power, executives with lower power in their organizations were more likely to lie about their work achievements (Study 1, n = 230); graduate students with lower power in their Ph.D. studies were more likely to lie about their publication records (Study 2, n = 164); and employees with lower power were more likely to lie about having signed a business contract (Studies 3 and 4). Mediation analyses suggest that lower power increased lying because lower power individuals feel lower esteem in their organizations (Study 3, n = 562). Further supporting this mechanism, a self-affirmation intervention reduced the effect of lower power on self-promotional lying (Study 4, n = 536). These converging findings show that, when lies are self-promotional, lower power can be more corruptive than higher power.
Background and aims
The individual difference predictors of positive work attitudes and behaviors have been widely investigated in the field of positive organizational scholarship. However, to date, integrating studies linking positive psychological resources, such as Psychological Capital and influence regulation, with positive organizational outcomes are still scarce. Thus, the main aim of the present study was to examine the relationships of Psychological Capital and influence regulation with job satisfaction and job performance both at the individual and team levels.
Methods
Within the cross-sectional multi-source research involving both team leaders and team members from 34 different teams, we examined the relationships of Psychological Capital and influence regulation with job satisfaction and job performance. The relationships of the study variables were based on the positive organizational behavior and the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions, which suggest the positive relationships of distinct positive psychological resources with positive work outcomes. Accordingly, in addition to the widely accepted concept of Psychological Capital (PsyCap), we employed and analyzed the complimentary construct of influence regulation (i.e., the ability to intentionally share social influence with others in the workplace) both at the individual and group levels.
Results
The results of hierarchical linear modeling with 304 individuals from 34 teams from a diverse sample of Polish employees indicated that team members’ PsyCap was positively linked to individual-level job satisfaction and two facets of job performance, i.e. creative performance and in-role performance. In contrast, no relationship was found between influence regulation and job satisfaction or job performance at both levels of analysis.
Conclusion
With regard to positive interpersonal resources, the findings highlight the role of PsyCap in predicting job satisfaction and job performance and broaden the understanding of positivity in the workplace by introducing the construct of influence regulation. Also, based on the study results, managerial implications are discussed.
Financial hardship is an established source of shame. This research explores whether shame is also a driver and exacerbator of financial hardship. Six experimental, archival, and correlational studies (N = 9,110)—including data from customer bank account histories and several longitudinal surveys that allow for participant fixed effects and identical twin comparisons—provide evidence for a vicious cycle between shame and financial hardship: Shame induces financial withdrawal, which increases the probability of counterproductive financial decisions that only deepen one’s financial hardship. Consistent with this model, shame was a stronger driver of financial hardship than the related emotion of guilt because shame increases withdrawal behaviors more than guilt. We also found that a theoretically motivated intervention—affirming acts of kindness—can break this cycle by reducing the link between financial shame and financial disengagement. This research suggests that shame helps set a poverty trap by creating a self-reinforcing cycle of financial hardship.
OBJECTIVE
Ample evidence exists that one's internal state (e.g., mindset, emotion) impacts one's performance. Both the military and sports organizations have focused on optimizing internal states of their service members and athletes, respectively, to improve performance and wellbeing. The internal states of surgical residents and the factors that influence their internal states have not yet been examined. Our goal is to better understand whether certain internal states are beneficial for resident operative performance, and how to optimize these during surgical training.
DESIGN
A 17-question survey, containing both open-ended and multiple-choice questions, was distributed to all (n = 134) surgical residents at the University of Wisconsin. In open-ended questions, recurring themes were identified utilizing content analysis. Recurring themes stated by 25% or more of the respondents are reported.
SETTING
Department of Surgery at the University of Wisconsin—Madison.
PARTICIPANTS
Surgical residents at the University of Wisconsin.
RESULTS
The survey response rate varied between n = 47 (35%) and n = 32 (24%), as not all respondents answered all questions. (1) Effective surgical educators were identified to demonstrate humanism and focus on teaching. (2) Nearly all residents affirmed that certain mindsets help them excel in the OR, including positive and confident mindsets. (3) Nearly all residents affirmed that faculty and senior residents influence their mindsets. (4) Constructive resident mindsets were promoted by positive faculty behaviors and personal preparation, while negative faculty behaviors were identified to stifle constructive mindsets. (5) Factors contributing to favorable OR performance included personal preparation and positive OR environments. (6) Factors contributing to poor OR performance included inadequate preparation and negative interactions with faculty.
CONCLUSIONS
Residents near unanimously believe that certain mindsets help them excel, and that faculty impact their mindsets. As teachers, we must strive to better understand how to foster constructive mindsets in residents to optimize learning, performance, and wellbeing.
Why does power lead to action? Theories of power suggest it leads to action because it presses the psychological gas pedal. A review of two decades of research finds, instead, that power releases the psychological brakes on action. Power releases the psychological brakes on action by making failure seem less probable and feel less painful, thereby decreasing the downside risks of action. Power releases the psychological brakes on action by shrouding the feelings and thoughts of others, thereby diminishing the perceived social costs of action. Power releases the psychological brakes on action by limiting goal-inhibiting distractions, thereby promoting greater goal focus and focusing the mind on action. By removing these psychological barriers to action, power leads to action.
After obtaining a sample of published, peer-reviewed articles from journals with high and low impact factors in social, cognitive, neuro-, developmental, and clinical psychology, we used a priori equations recently derived by Trafimow (Educational and Psychological Measurement, 77, 831–854, 2017; Trafimow & MacDonald in Educational and Psychological Measurement, 77, 204–219, 2017) to compute the articles’ median levels of precision. Our findings indicate that developmental research performs best with respect to precision, whereas cognitive research performs the worst; however, none of the psychology subfields excelled. In addition, we found important differences in precision between journals in the upper versus lower echelons with respect to impact factors in cognitive, neuro-, and clinical psychology, whereas the difference was dramatically attenuated for social and developmental psychology. Implications are discussed.
This integrative review presents the Agentic–Communal Model of Advantage and Disadvantage to offer insight into the psychology of inequality. This model examines the relation between individuals’ position of advantage or disadvantage in a social hierarchy and their propensity toward agency and communion. We begin by identifying and reviewing four inequalities—Resources, Opportunities, Appraisals, and Deference, or the ROAD of inequality—that are fundamental to social advantage and disadvantage. We explain how these inequalities can instill a sense of advantage and disadvantage in individuals. Next, we discuss two core drivers of human behavior: agency and communion. We integrate these literatures to introduce the model's central propositions: a sense of advantage orients individuals toward agency and a sense of disadvantage orients individuals toward communion. We review evidence for this model across four distinct social hierarchies: power, social class, gender, and race. A number of findings suggest that higher-power individuals, higher-class individuals, men, and Whites express greater agency, whereas lower-power individuals, lower-class individuals, women, and minorities express greater communion. We also consider results in the literature that appear inconsistent with our propositions (i.e., when the advantaged are communal and the disadvantaged are agentic) and offer theoretical integrations to resolve these apparent contradictions. In particular, we highlight how the orthogonal nature of agency and communion can produce behavior that results from the combination of high agency and communion. To help motivate a future research agenda, we note the importance of both hierarchy salience and cultural considerations in determining individuals’ orientations toward agency and communion. Finally, we consider the implications of this model for the study of social hierarchy and inequality, as well as the consequences of rising inequality levels.
The authors examined how gender stereotypes affect negotiation performance. Men outperformed women when the negotiation was perceived as diagnostic of ability (Experiment 1) or the negotiation was linked to gender-specific traits (Experiment 2), suggesting the threat of negative stereotype confirmation hurt women's performance relative to men. The authors hypothesized that men and women confirm gender stereotypes when they are activated implicitly, but when stereotypes are explicitly activated, people exhibit stereotype reactance, or the tendency to behave in a manner inconsistent with a stereotype. Experiment 3 confirmed this hypothesis. In Experiment 4, the authors examined the cognitive processes involved in stereotype reactance and the conditions under which cooperative behaviors between men and women can be promoted at the bargaining table (by activating a shared identity that transcends gender).
Three experiments explored the role of negotiator focus in disconnecting negotiated outcomes and evaluations. Negotiators who focused on their target prices, the ideal outcome they could obtain, achieved objectively superior outcomes compared with negotiators who focused on their lower bound (e.g., reservation price). Those negotiators who focused on their targets, however, were less satisfied with their objectively superior outcomes. In the final experiment, when negotiators were reminded of their lower bound after the negotiation, the satisfaction of those negotiators who had focused on their target prices was increased, with outcomes and evaluations becoming connected rather than disconnected. The possible negative effects of setting high goals and the temporal dimensions of the disconnection and reconnection between outcomes and evaluations are discussed.
We propose that hierarchy is such a prevalent form of social organization because it is functionally adaptive and enhances a group’s chances of survival and success. We identify five ways in which hierarchy facilitates organizational success. Hierarchy (a) creates a psychologically rewarding environment; (b) motivates performance through hierarchy-related incentives; (c) capitalizes on the complementary psychological effects of having versus lacking power; (d) supports division of labor, and, as a result, coordination; and (e) reduces conflict and enhances voluntary cooperation. Overall, we specify a causal model linking organizational structure (hierarchy), processes (motivation, leadership, coordination, and cooperation) and outcomes (performance). We also discuss three variables that moderate the need for and acceptance of hierarchy—(a) the level of task interdependence; (b) the legitimacy of hierarchical differentiation; and (c) the alignment of different bases of hierarchy—and link them to the mediating processes through which hierarchy facilitates organizational success.
Examination of human prestige-striving in phylogenetic perspective suggests it to be essentially homologous with primate social dominance. In our own species, however, selection for "cultural capacity" has transformed striving for social dominance into striving to evaluate the self as being higher in rank than others or, in other words, into striving for self-esteem. We maintain self-esteem through symbolic means, usually referred to as seeking "prestige." We also utilize various distortions of perception and cognition to this end, including rationalization, identification, and change of reference group. Prestige strategies may emphasize attaining prestige through being part of a prestigious group or may be more individualistically oriented. They may also stress receipt of the approbation of internal representations of absent or imaginary others or emphasize the respect of those physically present. Traditional societies provide culturally patterned strategies which tend to perpetuate these societies. Thus, success in the hunt brings prestige among hunting peoples, large herds among pastoralists, etc. Culturally constituted rationalizations help to maintain the self-esteem of those who fail. Culture contact is one of the chief causes of the failure of prestige-allocation systems, the very existence of wealthy and powerful newcomers devaluing the coin of the prestige obtainable through traditional strategies. Newly development prestige strategies are likely to have deleterious long-term effects on social stability. The so-called need for achievement reveals itself to be a particular type of prestige strategy, one emphasizing entrepreneurial tactics.
This study investigated the interactive influences of diagnosticity instructions, gender, and ethnicity as they related to task performance. In a laboratory experiment of 120 male and female, Latino and White college students, both a gender-based and an ethnicity-based stereotype-threat effect were found to influence performance on a test of mathematical and spatial ability. Closer inspection revealed that the gender effect was qualified by ethnicity, whereas the ethnicity effect was not qualified by gender. This suggests that the ethnicity of Latino women sensitized them to negative stereotypes about their gender, leading to a performance decrement in a context in which stereotype threat was activated. In contrast, it appeared that the gender of Latino women did not sensitize them to negative stereotypes about their ethnicity, because both male and female Latinos evidenced ethnicity-based stereotype threat. These findings have implications for the interplay between multiple group identities as they relate to concern for confirming negative stereotypes.
Hierarchy is such a defining and pervasive feature of organizations that its forms and basic functions are often taken for granted in organizational research. In this review, we revisit some basic psychological and sociological elements of hierarchy and argue that status and power are two important yet distinct bases of hierarchical differentiation. We first define power and status and distinguish our definitions from previous conceptualizations. We then integrate a number of different literatures to explain why status and power hierarchies tend to be self‐reinforcing. Power, related to one’s control over valued resources, transforms individual psychology such that the powerful think and act in ways that lead to the retention and acquisition of power. Status, related to the respect one has in the eyes of others, generates expectations for behavior and opportunities for advancement that favor those with a prior status advantage. We also explore the role that hierarchy‐enhancing belief systems play in stabilizing hierarchy, both from the bottom up and from the top down. Finally, we address a number of factors that we think are instrumental in explaining the conditions under which hierarchies change. Our framework suggests a number of avenues for future research on the bases, causes, and consequences of hierarchy in groups and organizations.
This paper describes a biosocial model of status in face-to-face groups. It argues that status ranks are allocated among members
of a group through face-to-face interaction and that the allocation process is similar across each primate species, including
humans. Every member of a group signifies its rank through physical or vocal demeanor. For example, behavioral signs of dominant
status include erect posture, glares, eye contact, strutting, and (in humans) assertive speech. Individuals whose behaviors
exhibit dominance show high or rising levels of testosterone compared to those who exhibit deference. Testosterone and dominance
are reciprocally related. The model relies more on research on males than on females. It is proposed as a theory about both
sexes, but with a caution that little is known about sex differences in the relation of hormones to dominance behavior.
Women's emancipation (GGI) Gender gap, math Gender gap, reading 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30
Two experiments showed that framing an athletic task as diagnostic of negative racial stereotypes about Black or White athletes can impede their performance in sports. In Experiment 1, Black participants performed significantly worse than did control participants when performance on a golf task was framed as diagnostic of “sports intelligence.” In comparison, White participants performed worse than did control participants when the golf task was framed as diagnostic of “natural athletic ability.” Experiment 2 observed the effect of stereotype threat on the athletic performance of White participants for whom performance in sports represented a significant measure of their self-worth. The implications of the findings for the theory of stereotype threat (C. M. Steele, 1997) and for participation in sports are discussed.
Drawing from self-affirmation theory (C. M. Steele, 1988) and L. L. Martin and A. Tesser's (1989, 1996) theory of ruminative thinking, the authors hypothesized that people stop ruminating about a frustrated goal when they can affirm an important aspect of the self. In 3 experiments participants were given failure feedback on an alleged IQ test. Failure feedback led to increased rumination (i.e., accessibility of goal-related thoughts) compared with no-failure conditions (Studies 1 and 2). Rumination was reduced when participants could self-affirm after failure (Studies 1 and 2) or before failure (Study 3). In Study 3, self-affirmation led to increased positive affect on a disguised mood test and more positive name letter evaluations. Moreover, the obtained increase in positive affect mediated the effect of self-affumation on rumination. It is concluded that self-affirmation may be an effective way to stop ruminative thinking. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
In Exp I, private expectancies of success were manipulated by having 38 male and 26 female undergraduates complete a confidential preliminary test that was rigged to cause either success or failure. Ss furnished confidential self-reports of expectancies and were informed that their audience expected them to succeed in an anagram-solving task. Results show that Ss' private expectancies of success improved performance, while audience's expectations of success lowered performance. Findings were strongest for Ss low in trait self-consciousness and for males. In Exp II, 30 undergraduates completed a personality questionnaire and were told they had an integration score of 75. Ss were (1) told they were expected to do well on the basis of past research findings, (2) told they were expected to do well on the basis of the experimenter's theory, or (3) given no information about expectations. Results show that Condition 1 raised performance while Condition 2 lowered performance. Findings fit a model holding that audience expectations of success constitute performance pressure that harms performance except when substantial private confidence is created. (24 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Tested the hypothesis that an experience that simply affirms a valued aspect of the self can eliminate dissonance and its accompanying cognitive changes. Three experiments were conducted using the conventional forced-compliance procedure. In Study 1, some of the 76 college student Ss were allowed to affirm an important, self-relevant value (by completing a self-relevant value scale) immediately after having written unrelated dissonant essays and prior to recording their attitudes on the postmeasure. Other Ss underwent an identical procedure but were selected so that the value affirmed by the scale was not part of their self-concept. The value scale eliminated dissonance-reducing attitude change among Ss for whom it was self-relevant but not among Ss for whom it was not self-relevant. This occurred even though the value scale could not resolve or reduce the objective importance of the dissonance-provoking inconsistency. Study 2, conducted with 24 Ss with a strong economic and political value orientation, showed that the self-affirmation effect was strong enough to prevent the reinstatement of dissonance. Study 3, testing generalizability with 24 Ss, replicated the effect by using a different attitude issue, a different value for affirmation, and a different measure of dissonance reduction. Results imply that a need for psychological consistency is not part of dissonance motivation and that salient, self-affirming cognitions may help objectify reactions to self-threatening information. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
We investigate how a key structural aspect of negotiation—power—combines with aspiration level to affect the interaction pattern of negotiators. Conflicting research findings have revealed that in most cases negotiators with anequal balance of power reach agreements of higher joint gain than negotiators with an unequal power balance, but in some instances the opposite result has been found. We suggest that it is important to consider the interaction between the negotiators to explain these varying findings. We propose that when unequal power negotiators are able to reach agreements of high joint gain it is due to the efforts of the low power party. In addition, we argue that the low power player will be most likely to drive the search for a solution of high joint gain when he or she also has high aspirations. We tested these proposals in a market negotiation with integrative potential. To examine the pattern of negotiation, all offers and counter-offers were written. The results indicated that overall, equal power dyads achieved higher joint outcomes than unequal power dyads. Under unequal power, the hypothesis that higher joint outcomes would be obtained when the low power player had high aspirations received partial support. In addition, support was found for the hypothesis that in unequal power dyads low power players would be responsible for driving solutions of higher joint gain.
There are currently a large number of models which identify self-evaluation (self-esteem) as an important source of motivation. However, these models often posit qualitatively different antecedents and consequences. The present studies focus on the questions of whether these qualitatively different behavioral systems affect the same or different mediating variables, and whether the motivation is to maximize or simply maintain a particular level of self-evaluation. In Study 1 we found that providing subjects a “self affirmation” (Steele, 1988) opportunity reduced their propensity to engage in self-evaluation maintenance behaviors (SEM; Tesser, 1988). In Studies 2 and 3 we found that making salient positive SEM scenarios reduced the propensity to engage in dissonance reduction whereas making salient a threatening SEM scenario did not. These results were interpreted as indicating that these hypothetical self-systems affect the same mediating variable and that the motive is to maintain rather than maximize self-evaluation.
The present article examines effects of power on basic cognition. It proposes that power bolsters the ability to attend to information selectively; enhancing the processing of information that is related to accessible constructs in detriment of peripheral, less accessible information. In contrast, powerlessness increases attunement to peripheral information, inducing greater distractibility and less attentional flexibility. Experiment 1 focuses on attention to an object and its context. Experiment 2 examines attentional focus and readiness to act. Experiment 3 examines attention to global vs. local aspects of a focal target. Powerful individuals, relative to powerless individuals, showed greater ability to inhibit peripheral information, and greater ability to focus attention in line with the demands of the task. Furthermore, inhibiting peripheral information facilitated action. The consequences of these findings for different domains are discussed.
Poor performance in pressure-filled situations, or "choking under pressure," has largely been explained by two different classes of theories. Distraction theories propose that choking occurs because attention needed to perform the task at hand is coopted by task-irrelevant thoughts and worries. Explicit monitoring theories claim essentially the opposite-that pressure prompts individuals to attend closely to skill processes in a manner that disrupts execution. Although both mechanisms have been shown to occur in certain contexts, it is unclear when distraction and/or explicit monitoring will ultimately impact performance. The authors propose that aspects of the pressure situation itself can lead to distraction and/or explicit monitoring, differentially harming skills that rely more or less on working memory and attentional control. In Experiments 1-2, it is shown that pressure that induces distraction (involving performance-contingent outcomes) hurts rule-based category learning heavily dependent on attentional control. In contrast, pressure that induces explicit monitoring of performance (monitoring by others) hurts information-integration category learning thought to run best without heavy demands on working memory and attentional control. In Experiment 3, the authors leverage knowledge about how specific types of pressure impact performance to design interventions to eliminate choking. Finally, in Experiment 4, the selective effects of monitoring-pressure are replicated in a different procedural-based task: the serial reaction time task. Skill failure (and success) depends in part on how the performance environment influences attention and the extent to which skill execution depends on explicit attentional control.
Stereotype threat spillover is a situational predicament in which coping with the stress of stereotype confirmation leaves one in a depleted volitional state and thus less likely to engage in effortful self-control in a variety of domains. We examined this phenomenon in 4 studies in which we had participants cope with stereotype and social identity threat and then measured their performance in domains in which stereotypes were not "in the air." In Study 1 we examined whether taking a threatening math test could lead women to respond aggressively. In Study 2 we investigated whether coping with a threatening math test could lead women to indulge themselves with unhealthy food later on and examined the moderation of this effect by personal characteristics that contribute to identity-threat appraisals. In Study 3 we investigated whether vividly remembering an experience of social identity threat results in risky decision making. Finally, in Study 4 we asked whether coping with threat could directly influence attentional control and whether the effect was implemented by inefficient performance monitoring, as assessed by electroencephalography. Our results indicate that stereotype threat can spill over and impact self-control in a diverse array of nonstereotyped domains. These results reveal the potency of stereotype threat and that its negative consequences might extend further than was previously thought.
A 2-year follow-up of a randomized field experiment previously reported in Science is presented. A subtle intervention to lessen minority students' psychological threat related to being negatively stereotyped in school was tested in an experiment conducted three times with three independent cohorts (N = 133, 149, and 134). The intervention, a series of brief but structured writing assignments focusing students on a self-affirming value, reduced the racial achievement gap. Over 2 years, the grade point average (GPA) of African Americans was, on average, raised by 0.24 grade points. Low-achieving African Americans were particularly benefited. Their GPA improved, on average, 0.41 points, and their rate of remediation or grade repetition was less (5% versus 18%). Additionally, treated students' self-perceptions showed long-term benefits. Findings suggest that because initial psychological states and performance determine later outcomes by providing a baseline and initial trajectory for a recursive process, apparently small but early alterations in trajectory can have long-term effects. Implications for psychological theory and educational practice are discussed.
Choking under pressure is defined as performance decrements under circumstances that increase the importance of good or improved performance. A model for choking on coordination and skill tasks is proposed, holding that the pressure increases the conscious attention to the performer's own process of performance and that this increased conscious attention disrupts the automatic or overlearned nature of the execution. Six experiments provided data consistent with this model. Three studies showed that increased attention to one's own process of performance resulted in performance decrements. Three other studies showed similar decrements produced by situational manipulations of pressure (i.e., implicit competition, a cash incentive, and audience-induced pressure). Individuals low in dispositional self-consciousness were shown to be more susceptible to choking under pressure than those high in it.
Stereotype threat is being at risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one's group. Studies 1 and 2 varied the stereotype vulnerability of Black participants taking a difficult verbal test by varying whether or not their performance was ostensibly diagnostic of ability, and thus, whether or not they were at risk of fulfilling the racial stereotype about their intellectual ability. Reflecting the pressure of this vulnerability, Blacks underperformed in relation to Whites in the ability-diagnostic condition but not in the nondiagnostic condition (with Scholastic Aptitude Tests controlled). Study 3 validated that ability-diagnosticity cognitively activated the racial stereotype in these participants and motivated them not to conform to it, or to be judged by it. Study 4 showed that mere salience of the stereotype could impair Blacks' performance even when the test was not ability diagnostic. The role of stereotype vulnerability in the standardized test performance of ability-stigmatized groups is discussed.
A general theory of domain identification is used to describe achievement barriers still faced by women in advanced quantitative areas and by African Americans in school. The theory assumes that sustained school success requires identification with school and its subdomains; that societal pressures on these groups (e.g., economic disadvantage, gender roles) can frustrate this identification; and that in school domains where these groups are negatively stereotyped, those who have become domain identified face the further barrier of stereotype threat, the threat that others’ judgments or their own actions will negatively stereotype them in the domain. Research shows that this threat dramatically depresses the standardized test performance of women and African Americans who are in the academic vanguard of their groups (offering a new interpretation of group differences in standardized test performance), that it causes disidentification with school, and that practices that reduce this threat can reduce these negative effects.
Three experiments explored the role of first offers, perspective-taking, and negotiator self-focus in determining distributive outcomes in a negotiation. Across 3 experiments, whichever party, the buyer or seller, made the 1st offer obtained a better outcome. In addition, 1st offers were a strong predictor of final settlement prices. However, when the negotiator who did not make a 1st offer focused on information that was inconsistent with the implications of the opponent's 1st offer, the advantageous effect of making the 1st offer was eliminated: Thinking about one's opponent's alternatives to the negotiation (Experiment 1), one's opponent's reservation price (Experiment 2), or one's own target (Experiment 3) all negated the effect of 1st offers on outcomes. These effects occurred for both face-to-face negotiations and E-mail negotiations. Implications for negotiations and perspective-taking are discussed.
Experiments 1-2 examined generic knowledge and episodic memories of putting in novice and expert golfers. Impoverished episodic recollection of specific putts among experts indicated that skilled putting is encoded in a procedural form that supports performance without the need for step-by-step attentional control. According to explicit monitoring theories of choking, such proceduralization makes putting vulnerable to decrements under pressure. Experiments 3-4 examined choking and the ability of training conditions to ameliorate it in putting and a nonproceduralized alphabet arithmetic skill analogous to mental arithmetic. Choking occurred in putting but not alphabet arithmetic. In putting, choking was unchanged by dual-task training but eliminated by self-consciousness training. These findings support explicit monitoring theories of choking and the popular but infrequently tested belief that attending to proceduralized skills hurts performance.
Three experiments explored the role of negotiator focus in disconnecting negotiated outcomes and evaluations. Negotiators who focused on their target prices, the ideal outcome they could obtain, achieved objectively superior outcomes compared with negotiators who focused on their lower bound (e.g., reservation price). Those negotiators who focused on their targets, however, were less satisfied with their objectively superior outcomes. In the final experiment, when negotiators were reminded of their lower bound after the negotiation, the satisfaction of those negotiators who had focused on their target prices was increased, with outcomes and evaluations becoming connected rather than disconnected. The possible negative effects of setting high goals and the temporal dimensions of the disconnection and reconnection between outcomes and evaluations are discussed.
This article examines how power influences behavior. Elevated power is associated with increased rewards and freedom and thereby activates approach-related tendencies. Reduced power is associated with increased threat, punishment, and social constraint and thereby activates inhibition-related tendencies. The authors derive predictions from recent theorizing about approach and inhibition and review relevant evidence. Specifically, power is associated with (a) positive affect, (b) attention to rewards, (c) automatic information processing, and (d) disinhibited behavior. In contrast, reduced power is associated with (a) negative affect; (b) attention to threat, punishment, others' interests, and those features of the self that are relevant to others' goals; (c) controlled information processing; and (d) inhibited social behavior. The potential moderators and consequences of these power-related behavioral patterns are discussed.
Three experiments investigated the hypothesis that power increases an action orientation in the power holder, even in contexts where power is not directly experienced. In Experiment 1, participants who possessed structural power in a group task were more likely to take a card in a simulated game of blackjack than those who lacked power. In Experiment 2, participants primed with high power were more likely to act against an annoying stimulus (a fan) in the environment, suggesting that the experience of power leads to the performance of goal-directed behavior. In Experiment 3, priming high power led to action in a social dilemma regardless of whether that action had prosocial or antisocial consequences. The effects of priming power are discussed in relation to the broader literature on conceptual and mind-set priming.
Endorsed by the International Society of Sport Psychology, this classic reference draws on an international roster of experts and scholars in the field who have assembled state-of-the-art knowledge into this thorough, well-rounded, and accessible volume. It is completely updated to reflect the latest research and is an indispensable resource for any student or professional interested in the field of sport psychology.
A general theory of domain identification is used to describe achievement barriers still faced by women in advanced quantitative areas and by African Americans in school. The theory assumes that sustained school success requires identification with school and its subdomains; that societal pressures on these groups (e.g., economic disadvantage, gender roles) can frustrate this identification; and that in school domains where these groups are negatively stereotyped, those who have become domain identified face the further barrier of stereotype threat, the threat that others' judgments or their own actions will negatively stereotype them in the domain. Research shows that this threat dramatically depresses the standardized test performance of women and African Americans who are in the academic vanguard of their groups (offering a new interpretation of group differences in standardized test performance), that it causes disidentification with school, and that practices that reduce this threat can reduce these negative effects.
This paper is a rough précis of a recent book (GRAY, 1982). It is concerned with the question: what are the brain structures which mediate the psychology as well as the neurology of anxiety? It is clear that, once you start asking questions about the brain, you have to work with animals for reasons that are familiar to everybody. But it is very difficult to start studying emotions in animals, because it is difficult to know what emotions animals experience and whether these are the same as the human emotions. So the first thing one has to look for is a kind of crutch or bridge to get you across from the human domain on one side to the animal domain on the other. Now in the case of anxiety we are quite fortunate in that there are certain drugs which are clinically very effective in controlling anxiety in human subjects. So one can take those drugs and apply them to animals to study their behavioral effects.
Previous research has found that power increases awareness of goal-relevant over goal-irrelevant information. However, this work has failed to distinguish between goal-facilitating and goal-inhibiting information, both of which are goal relevant. The current research investigated whether power increases the cognitive resources devoted to goal-facilitating information or reduces the cognitive resources devoted to goal-constraining information. Two experiments found that, compared to low-power individuals, high-power individuals recalled less goal-constraining information and generated fewer potential constraints that would prevent the protagonist of a story from completing his goal. However, there was no difference between the powerful and powerless in their recall or generation of goal-facilitating information. These results suggest that the powerful are more likely to act on their goals because the constraints that normally inhibit action are less psychologically present for them.
Research on “stereotype threat” (Aronson, Quinn, & Spencer, 1998; Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995) suggests that the social stigma of intellectual inferiority borne by certain cultural minorities can undermine the standardized test performance and school outcomes of members of these groups. This research tested two assumptions about the necessary conditions for stereotype threat to impair intellectual test performance. First, we tested the hypothesis that to interfere with performance, stereotype threat requires neither a history of stigmatization nor internalized feelings of intellectual inferiority, but can arise and become disruptive as a result of situational pressures alone. Two experiments tested this notion with participants for whom no stereotype of low ability exists in the domain we tested and who, in fact, were selected for high ability in that domain (math-proficient white males). In Study 1 we induced stereotype threat by invoking a comparison with a minority group stereotyped to excel at math (Asians). As predicted, these stereotype-threatened white males performed worse on a difficult math test than a nonstereotype-threatened control group. Study 2 replicated this effect and further tested the assumption that stereotype threat is in part mediated by domain identification and, therefore, most likely to undermine the performances of individuals who are highly identified with the domain being tested. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for the development of stereotype threat theory as well as for standardized testing.
Self-affirmation processes are being activated by information that threatens the perceived adequacy or integrity of the self and as running their course until this perception is restored through explanation, rationalization, and/or action. The purpose of these constant explanations (and rationalizations) is to maintain a phenomenal experience of the self-self-conceptions and images as adaptively and morally adequate—that is, as competent, good, coherent, unitary, stable, capable of free choice, capable of controlling important outcomes, and so on. The research reported in this chapter focuses on the way people cope with the implications of threat to their self-regard rather than on the way they cope with the threat itself. This chapter analyzes the way coping processes restore self-regard rather than the way they address the provoking threat itself.
The present paper investigates how and when social status may serve as a cue for tacit coordination. In three experimental studies, we demonstrate that low status individuals are inclined to defer to the preferences of high status individuals, thereby facilitating coordination success. Furthermore, we investigate the boundary conditions of this effect. More specifically, we show that social status only facilitates coordination success when the people involved have asymmetric (or conflicting) preferences (Study 2), and when there is a clear social hierarchy (Study 3). In the general discussion, we relate these findings to earlier research on dominance hierarchies, social power, deference and perspective-taking and we provide suggestions for future research.
When women perform math, unlike men, they risk being judged by the negative stereotype that women have weaker math ability. We call this predicamentstereotype threatand hypothesize that the apprehension it causes may disrupt women's math performance. In Study 1 we demonstrated that the pattern observed in the literature that women underperform on difficult (but not easy) math tests was observed among a highly selected sample of men and women. In Study 2 we demonstrated that this difference in performance could be eliminated when we lowered stereotype threat by describing the test as not producing gender differences. However, when the test was described as producing gender differences and stereotype threat was high, women performed substantially worse than equally qualified men did. A third experiment replicated this finding with a less highly selected population and explored the mediation of the effect. The implication that stereotype threat may underlie gender differences in advanced math performance, even those that have been attributed to genetically rooted sex differences, is discussed.
Power facilitates goal-directed behavior. Two studies, using different types of goals, examined the cognitive mechanisms that underlie this tendency. Participants, primed with power or powerlessness, performed lexical decision tasks that assessed the relative facilitation of goal-relevant constructs during goal striving and after goal attainment. Results showed that during goal striving powerful participants manifested an increased facilitation of goal-relevant constructs compared to other constructs, and this facilitation decreased immediately after goal completion. In contrast, their powerless counterparts showed less facilitation of goal constructs during goal striving and maintained goal accessibility after completion. These results are consistent with the effects of power on goal-directed behavior found in past research.
draw attention to a number of researchable issues in the neuropsychology of anxiety / [present] an outline of a theory of the neuropsychology of anxiety that has been developed in detail elsewhere
a theory of anxiety: the role of the limbic system [the antianxiety drugs, the brain and anxiety, a theory of anxiety] / the issues [the role of GABA [gamma-aminobutyric acid], the opiate connection, anxiety and depression] (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Paradoxical performance effects (‘choking under pressure’) are defined as the occurrence of inferior performance despite striving and incentives for superior performance. Experimental demonstrations of these effects on tasks analogous to athletic performance and the theories that may explain them are reviewed. At present, attentional theories seem to offer the most complete explanation of the processes underlying paradoxical performance effects. In particular, choking may result from distraction or from the interference of self-focused attention with the execution of automatic responses. Experimental findings of paradoxical performance decrements are associated with four pressure variables: audience presence, competition, performance-contingent rewards and punishments, and ego relevance of the task. The mediating factors of task complexity, expectancies, and individual differences are discussed.
Negotiated outcomes in market contexts where unique goods are offered include the matching of buyers and sellers and the terms of dyadic agreements. In a laboratory simulation of the MBA job market, subjects played the roles of job candidates or corporate recruiters. Subjects found jobs or hired employees and agreed to the terms of their employment contracts. The balance of power between the sides of the market was manipulated by 1) increasing the longevity of employment offers, or 2) improving the alternatives to agreement of recruiters. The results suggest that the quality of negotiated agreements between dyad members increased by unequal power. At the market level of analysis, the results suggest that exploding offers lower the quality of matching outcomes. These results are discussed in terms of their implications for competitive practices in matching markets.
The present studies were designed to investigate the effects of self-affirmation on the performance of women under stereotype threat. In Study 1, women performed worse on a difficult math test when it was described as diagnostic of math intelligence (stereotype threat condition) than in a non-diagnostic control condition. However, when women under stereotype threat affirmed a valued attribute, they performed at levels comparable to men and to women in the no-threat control condition. In Study 2, men and women worked on a spatial rotation test and were told that women were stereotyped as inferior on such tasks. Approximately half the women and men self-affirmed before beginning the test. Self-affirmation improved the performance of women under threat, but did not affect men’s performance.
We tested the hypothesis that the positive affect of powerful negotiators shapes the quality of negotiation processes and outcomes more than the positive affect of less powerful negotiators. Findings from two studies supported the hypothesis: powerful individuals' trait positive affect was the best predictor of negotiators' trust for each other and of whether they reached integrative outcomes. Positive affect predicted joint gains above and beyond negotiators' trait cooperativeness and communicativeness. However, positive affect was unrelated to distributive outcomes; thus, there were no observed disadvantages of being positively affective.
We examine how gender stereotypes affect performance in mixed-gender negotiations. We extend recent work demonstrating that stereotype activation leads to a male advantage and a complementary female disadvantage at the bargaining table (Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001). In the present investigation, we regenerate the stereotype of effective negotiators by associating stereotypically feminine skills with negotiation success. In Experiment 1, women performed better in mixed-gender negotiations when stereotypically feminine traits were linked to successful negotiating, but not when gender-neutral traits were linked to negotiation success. Gender differences were mediated by the performance expectations and goals set by negotiators. In Experiment 2, we regenerated the stereotype of effective negotiators by linking stereotypically masculine or feminine traits with negotiation ineffectiveness. Women outperformed men in mixed-gender negotiations when stereotypically masculine traits were linked to poor negotiation performance, but men outperformed women when stereotypically feminine traits were linked to poor negotiation performance. Implications for stereotype threat theory and negotiations are discussed.
When a negative stereotype impugns the ability or worth of an outgroup, people may experience stereotype lift—a performance boost that occurs when downward comparisons are made with a denigrated outgroup. In a meta-analytic review, members of non-stereotyped groups were found to perform better when a negative stereotype about an outgroup was linked to an intellectual test than when it was not (d=.24,p<.0001). Notably, people appear to link negative stereotypes to evaluative tests more or less automatically. Simply presenting a test as diagnostic of ability was thus sufficient to induce stereotype lift. Only when negative stereotypes were explicitly invalidated or rendered irrelevant to the test did the lift effect disappear.
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
The authors examined how gender stereotypes affect negotiation performance. Men outperformed women when the negotiation was perceived as diagnostic of ability (Experiment 1) or the negotiation was linked to gender-specific traits (Experiment 2), suggesting the threat of negative stereotype confirmation hurt women's performance relative to men. The authors hypothesized that men and women confirm gender stereotypes when they are activated implicitly, but when stereotypes are explicitly activated, people exhibit stereotype reactance, or the tendency to behave in a manner inconsistent with a stereotype. Experiment 3 confirmed this hypothesis. In Experiment 4, the authors examined the cognitive processes involved in stereotype reactance and the conditions under which cooperative behaviors between men and women can be promoted at the bargaining table (by activating a shared identity that transcends gender).