Construal of power as opportunity or responsibility

Perilous and unaccountable: The positive relationship between dominance and moral hazard behaviors.

“…We contend that dominant decision-makers are likely to engage in moral hazard behaviors. This prediction draws upon the theoretical framework of Scholl and colleagues that examines whether power is construed as an opportunity or a responsibility in pursuit of one's goals (Scholl et al, 2022). That is, as Scholl and colleagues argue, decision-makers who construe their freedom to decide, as an opportunity to take actions that benefit themselves or help them to achieve their goals, while those who construe power as a responsibility also take into account how their actions may impact others.…”

“…At the same time, empirical research reveals that the effect of power is more nuanced, such that the manner in which individuals construe power is contingent on their individual characteristics or contextual factors. For instance, some research indicates that individuals can construe power either as an opportunity to make things happen, which leads to a greater sense of freedom and a narrow focus on one’s goal, or as a responsibility toward others, which produces more deliberate and considerate decision making (Scholl et al, 2022). Consistent with this distinction are findings that power coupled with a communal orientation lead to more socially responsible behaviors (Chen et al, 2001) and that empathetic leaders demonstrate more interpersonal sensitivity (Schmid Mast et al, 2009).…”

“…Indeed, it is logical to predict that those who enjoy greater influence or authority will feel empowered to make moral hazard decisions. However, neither absolute differences in a formal position nor the discretion to make decisions tell the whole story, as studies show that not all influential leaders act self-interestedly—especially when their actions risk others’ well-being (Chen et al, 2001; Schmid Mast et al, 2009; Scholl et al, 2022). Often, in fact, leaders construe power as a responsibility to broader stakeholders, rather than just an opportunity to pursue their own goals (Scholl et al, 2022).…”

“…However, neither absolute differences in a formal position nor the discretion to make decisions tell the whole story, as studies show that not all influential leaders act self-interestedly—especially when their actions risk others’ well-being (Chen et al, 2001; Schmid Mast et al, 2009; Scholl et al, 2022). Often, in fact, leaders construe power as a responsibility to broader stakeholders, rather than just an opportunity to pursue their own goals (Scholl et al, 2022). In light of this discrepancy, the current research goes beyond past investigations of moral hazard to examine what separates decision-makers with the same formal authority from engaging in moral hazard behaviors.…”

Opening up new avenues for research on social power

“…By and large, social psychological research frequently focused on the main question how high (vs. low) power affects the way people, think, feel, and act-and as such, typically targeted straightforward main effects of power (e.g., see Scholl et al, 2022). Providing evidence for the limitations of this approach, prior work showed that many effects of power on behavior depend on which concrete goals are followed (e.g., Overbeck & Park, 2006), what is personally important to the powerholder (e.g., Chen et al, 2001;Côté et al, 2011, DeCelles et al, 2012, the situational structure (e.g., Tost & Johnson, 2019;Willis et al, 2010), or salient aspects of the given situation (e.g., Galinsky et al, 2003;Guinote et al, 2012).…”