Just because you're powerless doesn't mean they aren't out to get you: Low power, paranoia, and aggression

Clicks and tricks: The dark art of online persuasion

Internet users are inundated with attempts to persuade, including digital nudges like defaults, friction, and reinforcement. When these nudges fail to be transparent, optional, and beneficial, they can become 'dark patterns', categorised here under the acronym FORCES (Frame, Obstruct, Ruse, Compel, Entangle, Seduce). Elsewhere, psychological principles like negativity bias, the curiosity gap, and fluency are exploited to make social content viral, while more covert tactics including astroturfing, meta-nudging, and inoculation are used to manufacture consensus. The power of these techniques is set to increase in line with technological advances such as predictive algorithms, generative AI, and virtual reality. Digital nudges can be used for altruistic purposes including protection against manipulation, but behavioural interventions have mixed effects at best.

The Relationship between Power, Sense of Power, and Cognitive Flexibility: An Analysis of Parallel Mediating Effects Based on Reward and Punishment Sensitivity

This study utilized a sample of 2052 participants from government and enterprise sectors to explore the distinct effects of power and sense of power on cognitive flexibility. It also delves into how the three dimensions of reward sensitivity and the comprehensive measure of punishment sensitivity mediate this relationship. The key findings are as follows: (1) There is no significant direct correlation between power and sense of power. (2) Both power and sense of power are substantial positive predictors of cognitive flexibility, with middle- and upper-level employees demonstrating significantly greater cognitive flexibility than their lower-level counterparts, and sense of power having a more pronounced positive influence than objective power. (3) Drive and fun-seeking mediate the relationship between sense of power and cognitive flexibility, yet only when sense of power is the independent variable. (4) No mediating effects are observed for the dimensions of reward sensitivity or punishment sensitivity when power is the independent variable. Exploring reward and punishment sensitivity in the context of power's influence on cognitive flexibility in real organizational settings is of paramount importance. This enhances our understanding of the intricate ways in which power dynamics shape individual behaviors and cognition across diverse cultural landscapes and provides actionable insights for refining organizational management and leadership strategies.

Relationships Between Power, Communication About Work and Sex, and Emotion Expression: A Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count Analysis

Few experiences direct affect, behavior, and cognition as thoroughly as feelings of power and powerlessness. The present study examined 403 participants' narrated experiences feeling powerful (n = 196) or powerless (n = 207) using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) analysis to identify social contexts that might explain the effects of power on emotion expression. Powerful narratives contained more frequent communication about work, whereas powerless narratives contained more frequent communication about sex. Moreover, powerless narratives conveyed greater negative emotionality. A parallel mediation analysis revealed that communication about work and sex helped to explain the association between self-reported feelings of power and expressions of negative emotionality. When participants felt powerful and communicated about work, they expressed lower negative emotionality; when participants felt powerless and communicated about sex, they expressed higher negative emotionality. Modest differences in emotional expression between women and men indicated that power research should report analyses including gender as a control variable. Findings provide direction to the next wave of power research, which should examine organizations and intimate relationships as contexts in which power dynamics are salient.

Are many sex/gender differences really power differences?

This research addresses the long-standing debate about the determinants of sex/gender differences. Evolutionary theorists trace many sex/gender differences back to natural selection and sex-specific adaptations. Sociocultural and biosocial theorists, in contrast, emphasize how societal roles and social power contribute to sex/gender differences beyond any biological distinctions. By connecting two empirical advances over the past two decades-6-fold increases in sex/gender difference meta-analyses and in experiments conducted on the psychological effects of power-the current research offers a novel empirical examination of whether power differences play an explanatory role in sex/gender differences. Our analyses assessed whether experimental manipulations of power and sex/gender differences produce similar psychological and behavioral effects. We first identified 59 findings from published experiments on power. We then conducted a P-curve of the experimental power literature and established that it contained evidential value. We next subsumed these effects of power into 11 broad categories and compared them to 102 similar meta-analytic sex/gender differences. We found that high-power individuals and men generally display higher agency, lower communion, more positive self-evaluations, and similar cognitive processes. Overall, 71% (72/102) of the sex/gender differences were consistent with the effects of experimental power differences, whereas only 8% (8/102) were opposite, representing a 9:1 ratio of consistent-to-inconsistent effects. We also tested for discriminant validity by analyzing whether power corresponds more strongly to sex/gender differences than extraversion: although extraversion correlates with power, it has different relationships with sex/gender differences. These results offer novel evidence that many sex/gender differences may be explained, in part, by power differences.

Depression, reduced education, and bias perceptions as risk factors of beliefs in misinformation

The spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories related to COVID‐19 has represented one of the several undesirable effects of the current pandemic. In understanding why people can be more or less at risk to believe in misinformation, emotional distress and education could play a crucial role. The present study aims to analyze the relationship among depressive symptoms, education, and beliefs in misinformation about COVID-19 during the early phase of the pandemic. We do this through a cross-sectional study carried out on a random and representative sample of the Italian population that allows us to go and verify the co-evolution of many factors: i.e., beliefs in misinformation, symptoms of depression, perceptions about COVID-19, ways in which citizens got informed about the pandemic, and sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, education). The results show that the relationship between depression and beliefs in misinformation exists and is more complex than hypothesized because it is mediated by individual perceptions. In particular, the most at-risk people to believe in misinformation show higher bias perceptions, higher depression, and lower education. Practical implications are discussed suggesting a supportive intervention at both individual and social levels.

Is Job Insecurity Harmful to All Types of Proactivity? The Moderating Role of Future Work Self Salience and Socioeconomic Status

How and when do uncertain factors affect employees' different types of proactive behavior? Building on the strength model of self-control, the present study examines the different effects of job insecurity on individual-oriented and organizational-oriented proactive behaviors, and the moderating role of future work self salience (FWSS) and socioeconomic status (SES). Two-wave data collected from 227 employees in China were used to test our hypotheses. The results indicate that job insecurity is negatively associated with all the proactive behaviors. Moreover, the FWSS positively moderates the above relationship, and the moderating role on individual-oriented proactive behavior is stronger than organizational-oriented proactive behavior. The SES negatively moderates the relationship between job insecurity and the two types of proactive behaviors. In addition, the FWSS and SES have a three-way interactive effect on the relationship between job insecurity and individual task proactive behavior. The practical implications of these results are discussed.