Power Increases Social Distance

Lammers, Joris; Galinsky, Adam D.; Gordijn, Ernestine; Otten, Sabine

doi:10.1177/1948550611418679

Cited by 193 publications

(154 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

141

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While this might not address the source of the problem as confronting does, it is a compassionate form of response. Power tends to diminish shared distress, compassion, and empathy (van Kleef et al, 2008;Woltin, Cornielle, Yzerbyt & Förster, 2011), creates a sense of social distance from others (Lammers, Galinsky, Gordijn, & Otten, 2012;Magee & Smith, 2013), and diminishes the neural processes that produce interpersonal sensitivity (Hogeveen, Inzlicht, & Obhi, 2014). We therefore expect that:…”

Section: Power and Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Witnessing wrongdoing: The effects of observer power on incivility intervention in the workplace

Hershcovis

Neville

Reich

et al. 2017

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Power and Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Witnessing wrongdoing: The effects of observer power on incivility intervention in the workplace

Hershcovis

Neville

Reich

et al. 2017

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Finally, we tested the interpersonal effects of power by measuring how much participants felt close to and wanted to interact with these others, and how much they felt responsible for them. The social distance theory of power (4) posits that because high-power individuals are less dependent on low-power individuals than vice versa, highpower individuals should feel more distant from low-power individuals and less motivated to affiliate with them (35,36). The theory also posits that feelings of responsibility for others may shrink experienced social distance, and thus alter power's effects.…”

Section: Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…These results may reflect the greater variety of social roles, most outside the workplace, involved in our ecological research setting. Prior experimental work on power and social distance (35,36) has focused on one-shot interactions where high-power participants would be unlikely to feel responsible for their partners. These data suggest that in daily life there may be a higher average level of responsibility associated with power than previously thought (10), and that this greater responsibility fundamentally alters the consequences of power.…”

Section: Ra Ngmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power in everyday life

Smith

Hofmann

2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does power manifest itself in everyday life? Using experiencesampling methodology, we investigated the prevalence, sources, and correlates of power in people's natural environments. Participants experienced power-relevant situations regularly, though not frequently. High power was not restricted to a limited few: almost half of the sample reported experiencing high-power positions. Positional power and subjective feelings of power were strongly related but had unique relations with several individual difference measures and independent effects on participants' affect, cognition, and interpersonal relations. Subjective feelings of power resulted more from within-participant situational fluctuation, such as the social roles participants held at different times, than from stable differences between people. Our data supported some theoretical predictions about power's effects on affect, cognition, and interpersonal relations, but qualified others, particularly highlighting the role of responsibility in power's effects. Although the power literature has focused on high power, we found stronger effects of low power than high power.positional power | subjective feelings of power | experience sampling | social roles | ecological setting P ower-asymmetric control over valued resources (1-4)-is a fundamental feature of human relations (5): individuals detect power differences quickly, recall them easily, and often prefer them to equality (6, 7). Although power plays a pivotal role in many aspects of life, from the workplace (1) to the family (8) to romantic relationships (9), little is known empirically about the course of power in everyday life. Without such data, it is unclear how power is experienced by individuals on a daily basis, including basic facts such as whether having or lacking power is a regular or rare occurrence and to what degree individuals fluctuate in their level of power throughout the day.Surveying the full array of power experiences occurring in real life also allows for a robust test of power theories. Most recent data on the psychological experience of power has focused on workplace environments and experimental power manipulations (10). Although such manipulations allow for causal attributions, the most common ones involve thinking about power (11) or anticipating power differences rather than experiencing them (12). Even when participants experience low-and high-power roles in the laboratory, these roles generally do not involve real decisions or consequential outcomes (13). Because the effects of power are known to change when power involves meaningful interpersonal interactions versus hypothetical scenarios or anticipated interactions (14), and when power differences are experienced as appropriate and legitimate versus arbitrarily assigned (15, 16), it is not a given that theories developed in the experimental laboratory will generalize to real-world power experiences. Furthermore, if power operates in aspects of life beyond work, it is important to determine if theories of power (3, 4) ho...

show abstract

“…On the other hand, the feeling of power in itself affects the person's thinking process (see: Lammers -power, like alcohol, brings about a kind of moral Myopia -provokes behaviour that is described as a hyper-self-confident or hyper-assertive) [25].…”

Section: The Will To Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

The motivational peculiarities of bribe-takers

Kriviņš

2018

SHS Web Conf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Criminology (as the scientific study of criminal behaviour on the individual and social level) and psychology (as the science, which seeks to understand individuals and groups) pay special attention to motivation -a theoretical construction, used to explain behaviour. In this article, the motivation of recipients of bribery is widely investigated. In addition to such well-established motives as greediness, selfishness, prevalence of personal interest, the author analyses also other criminal behaviour determinants. The works, which are used in this research are of the following authors: John Broadus Watson, Edward Lee Thorndike (Behavioural); Sigmund Freud, Erich Fromm (Psychoanalysis); Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow (Existential-humanistic theories); William Isaac Thomas (Thomas theorem); Florian Witold Znaniecki (sociological theory); Erik Homburger Erikson (theory on psychosocial development of human beings); Jean William Fritz Piaget (theory of cognitive development); Herbert Lefcourt, Ronald Smith (Locus of Control); etc. As the result of this research the author has concluded that bribe-takers' behaviour is determined by such psychological constructs as the desire for power, fear, envy, mental deflections, mania, feeling of exclusion, the need for extreme, oppressed creativity.

show abstract

Power Increases Social Distance

Cited by 193 publications

References 67 publications

Witnessing wrongdoing: The effects of observer power on incivility intervention in the workplace

Witnessing wrongdoing: The effects of observer power on incivility intervention in the workplace

Power in everyday life

The motivational peculiarities of bribe-takers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About