Inferring power‐relevant thoughts and feelings in others: a signal detection analysis

Abstract

Drawing inferences about other people's thoughts and feelings related to power issues ('powerrelevant' thoughts and feelings) can affect how hierarchies are formed. Perceivers who infer such thoughts and feelings can be biased (i.e., over-or underestimating the occurrence of power-relevant thoughts and feelings). We investigated whether the perceiver's gender and the perceiver's preference for a high or low power position ('power preference') affects the perceiver's bias toward attributing power-relevant thoughts and feelings to others. Participants were 80 female and 35 male students who indicated their power preference and then guessed whether videotaped target individuals had experienced power-relevant thoughts and feelings or not. Using a signal detection approach, we found that men who preferred a high power position overestimated the occurrence of power-relevant thoughts and feelings in others more than men who preferred a low power position. No such difference in overestimation bias was found for women.

Truth and Wishful Thinking: How Interindividual Differences in Communal Motives Manifest in Momentary Partner Perceptions

“…Although signal detection analyses are primarily used in experimental research (Macmillan & Creelman, ), they are increasingly adopted in naturalistic studies (e.g. Henry, Kobus, & Schoeny, ; Mast, Hall, & Ickes, ; McClure, Lydon, Baccus, & Baldwin, ). Prior research has primarily used QSDT analyses to examine the consequences of partner perceptions for relationship functioning (Finkenauer, Wijngaards‐de Meij, Reis, & Rusbult, ; Gable et al, ; Reis, Maniaci, & Rogge, , ; Visserman et al, ), whereas the present research addressed its motivational sources.…”

Compliance Dynamics Within a Simulated Friendship Network I: The Effects of Agency, Tactic, and Node Centrality

“…Given the salience of power in people's lives, it is no wonder that people spend time “attending to, thinking about, and discussing the thoughts and behaviors of powerful and prestigious individuals” (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006, p. 511), and these thoughts may have strategic value (Mast, Hall, & Ickes, 2006). When attained, power has dramatic effects on how people behave (e.g., Mast et al, 2006; Milgram, 1965), and the powerful are viewed as being corrupted by power: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Lord Acton, 1887, as quoted in Bartlett, 1992, p. 521; see also Georgesen & Harris, 2006; Kipnis, 1972; cf.…”

“…The formation of power hierarchies in interpersonal interaction is ubiquitous and perhaps universal (see Aberle, Cohen, Davis, Levy, & Sutton, 1950, p. 106), and people may be continually attending to signs of power in others (Mast et al, 2006). One indication of power is the location of an individual in a communication network, such as a friendship sociogram.…”

Truth and Wishful Thinking: How Inter-Individual Differences in Communal Motives Manifest in Momentary Partner Perceptions

“…In a second set of analyses, we used a quasi-signal detection approach (QSDT ; e.g., Gable, Reis, & Downey, 2003) to examine the influences of communal motives on the perception of specific communal and uncommunal partner behaviors. Although signal detection analyses are primarily used in experimental research (Macmillan & Creelman, 2005), they are increasingly adopted in naturalistic studies (e.g., Henry, Kobus, & Schoeny, 2011;Mast, Hall, & Ickes, 2006;McClure, Lydon, Baccus, & Baldwin, 2010). Prior research has primarily used QSDT analyses to examine the consequences of partner perceptions for relationship functioning (Finkenauer, Wijngaards-de Meij, Reis, & Rusbult, 2010;Gable et al, 2003;Reis, Maniaci, & Rogge, 2014, 2017Visserman et al, 2018), whereas the present research addressed its motivational sources.…”