Noblesse oblige emerges (with time): Power enhances intergenerational beneficence

Self- and Other-Orientation in High Rank: A Cultural Psychological Approach to Social Hierarchy

PUBLIC ABSTRACT

Social hierarchy is one fundamental aspect of human life, structuring interactions in families, teams, and entire societies. In this review, we put forward a new theory about how social hierarchy is shaped by the wider societal contexts (i.e., cultures). Comparing East Asian and Western cultural contexts, we show how culture comprises societal beliefs about who can raise to high rank (e.g., become a leader), shapes interactions between high- and low-ranking individuals (e.g., in a team), and influences human thought and behavior in social hierarchies. Overall, we find cultural similarities, in that high-ranking individuals are agentic and self-oriented in both cultural contexts. But we also find important cross-cultural differences. In East Asian cultural contexts, high-ranking individuals are also other oriented; they are also concerned about the people around them and their relationships. We close with a call to action, suggesting studying social hierarchies in more diverse cultural contexts.

Positive reputation for altruism toward future generations regardless of the cost for current others

Recently, altruism toward future generations (future altruism) has become a hot research topic. Although future altruism has been observed in several previous experiments, it is not yet clear when and why people are more likely to engage in future altruism. Drawing upon the empirical literature of reputation and cooperation, we predicted that future altruism brings reputational disadvantages. Accordingly, we investigated whether future altruism was evaluated positively or negatively by others in the current generation in two vignette studies (total N = 1,237). Contrary to our initial prediction, we found that future altruism was positively evaluated even when it decreased the payoff of the members of the current generation. The difference in the evaluation of future altruism, as opposed to unsustainable current-generation focused behavior, was most pronounced when people do not know how a future altruist allocates rewards among individuals in the current generation. However, the positive evaluation of future altruism did not stem from the expectation that future altruists would also be altruistic toward the current generation. These results indicated that reputational benefits (i.e., positive reputation from others in the current generation) promote future altruism.

A social hierarchy perspective on the relationship between leader–member exchange (LMX) and interpersonal citizenship

Drawing upon contemporary social hierarchy research, the purpose of this study is to integrate a novel theoretical perspective to examine the taken-for-granted conclusions of the relationship between leader-member exchange (LMX) and interpersonal citizenship. We develop theoretically driven arguments and provide evidence of how LMX relates to power and status, the two prominent bases of social hierarchy. The results from our study support our assertion that the quality of LMX relationships provides social information about one's relative standing within a group's informal hierarchy. Specifically, LMX is positively associated with higher levels of perceived power and perceived status. Both power and status serve as important mediators that explain the relationship between LMX and interpersonal citizenship. We also identify the importance of citizenship pressure as a boundary condition for these relationships, finding that citizenship pressure interacts with power and status differently to influence the extent that employees engage in citizenship behaviors.

Powerlessness Also Corrupts: Lower Power Increases Self-Promotional Lying

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.

People prefer joint outcome prosocial resource distribution towards future others

Today, developing and maintaining sustainable societies is becoming a notable social concern, and studies on altruism and prosociality toward future generations are increasing in importance. Although altruistic behaviors toward future generations have previously been observed in some experimental situations, it remains unknown whether prosocial preferences toward future others are based on equality or joint outcome orientations. In the present research, we exploratorily investigated preferences regarding resource distribution by manipulating the time points (i.e., present/future) of the participants and their imaginary partners. The results indicate that prosocial preference toward future others was as strong as that toward present others and seemed to be based on a joint outcome prosocial preference. Notably, when participants and their partners were at different time points, participants preferred to leave resources for the persons in the future. The findings indicate that the type of altruistic preference toward future others may differ from that toward present others, which is mainly equality.

Power and decision making: new directions for research in the age of artificial intelligence

Throughout history, the experience of power has occurred within the context of human-human interactions. Such power can influence decision making through at least two primary mechanisms: (1) increased goal-orientation, and (2) increased activation of social role expectations. Importantly, new advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are creating the potential to experience power in human-AI interactions. To the extent that some forms of AI can be made to seem like low-power humans (e.g. autonomous digital assistants), people may feel powerful when interacting with such entities. However, it is unclear whether feeling power over AI will lead to the same psychological consequences as feeling power over humans. In this article, we review findings on power and decision making and then consider how they may be meaningfully extended by considering interactions with artificially intelligent digital assistants. We conclude with a call for new theorizing and research on power in the age of artificial intelligence.

Power and leadership

Social collectives often grant power to leaders so they can facilitate collective performance. At present, there is no comprehensive overview of how power influences the effectiveness of different influence mechanisms leaders use to achieve this goal. To help develop such an overview, I review recent research on the positive and negative effects of power on some of these influence mechanisms: leaders' punishment of norm transgressions, concern for followers, and procedural fairness enactment. I also highlight the role of individual differences and contextual factors in these processes. I end by discussing implications and future research directions.