Culture and concepts of power.

Abstract

Five studies indicate that conceptualizations of power are important elements of culture and serve culturally relevant goals. These studies provide converging evidence that cultures nurture different views of what is desirable and meaningful to do with power. Vertical individualism is associated with a conceptualization of power in personalized terms (i.e., power is for advancing one's personal status and prestige), whereas horizontal collectivism is associated with a conceptualization of power in socialized terms (i.e., power is for benefiting and helping others). Cultural variables are shown to predict beliefs about appropriate uses of power, episodic memories about power, attitudes in the service of power goals, and the contexts and ways in which power is used and defended. Evidence for the cultural patterning of power concepts is observed at both the individual level and the cultural-group level of analysis.

Why Power does not Guarantee Happiness across Cultures

“…Consistent with the theoretical model of Singelis et al (1995), Torelli and Shavitt (2010) argued that power can be conceptualized in terms of how it addresses significant cultural goals. In other words, power is seen as a precursor towards the attainment of important culturally-prescribed aspirations.…”

“…While the study of Torelli and Shavitt (2010) advanced our understanding on the interplay between culture and power, one possible limitation of this integration is that the culture was treated in a society-level. To address this, I will briefly discuss the framework of Markus and Kitayama (1991) which posits an individual-level conceptualization of culture.…”

“…Whereas some individuals exercise power to actualize their personal agenda, some individuals realize powerful goals to help others (Whiting & Whiting, 1975). Torelli and Shavitt (2010) further asserted that for individuals who are vertical individualists, they are inclined to endorse a personalised power concept where the primary considerations are social prestige and status. Those who are horizontal individualists prioritize their personal wants and preferences to exercise influence on others.…”

“…Torelli and Shavitt's (2010) initial work on aligning conceptions of power with individualism -collectivism framework (society-level measure of culture) offers promising insights on how culture may help individuals understand the psychological effects of power in various sociocultural milieus. It might be interesting to investigate how individual-level measures of culture (self-construal) can be incorporated in refining the definition of power.…”

Aproximaciones Psicosociales a la Corrupción: Una Revisión Teórica

“…Keltner, Gruenfeld y Anderson (2003) entienden el poder como la capacidad relativa de un individuo para modificar el estado de otras personas a través de la provisión o negación de recursos o la administración de castigos. Tener poder no solo implica una oportunidad para incrementar el beneficio personal, sino que también ofrece una oportunidad para utilizarlo en beneficio de los demás (Chen, Lee-Chai, & Bargh, 2001;Sassenberg, Ellemers, & Scheepers, 2012;Sassenberg, Ellemers, Scheepers, & Scholl, 2014;Scheepers, Ellemers, & Sassenberg, 2013;Torelli & Shavitt, 2010;Zhong, Magee, Maddux, & Galinsky, 2006). A la creencia generalizada de que el poder corrompe y de que quienes lo sustentan solo miran por su propio interés (Fiske, 1993;Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003;Keltner et al, 2003), se oponen numerosos estudios que apoyan la idea de que aquel también puede ser un instrumento para promover conductas a favor de la sociedad.…”