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.

Power, Self-Esteem, and Body Image

Abstract: We expected power – the perceived capacity to influence others – to be an antecedent of positive body image because power is closely linked to self-esteem, which in turn is linked to body image. In a cross-sectional study ( N = 318), sense of power was positively related to body appreciation and satisfaction with one’s appearance. Self-esteem partially mediated this effect. In an experimental study ( N = 114), participants assigned to a high-power group indicated more body appreciation, reported more body satisfaction, and estimated themselves to be taller than participants assigned to a low-power group. Self-esteem mediated all the effects. Altogether, power affected body image directly but also indirectly through elevated self-esteem. Implications refer to clinical prevention and intervention programs.

Effects of high and low power on the visual encoding of faces

The experience of power is typically associated with social disengagement, yet power has also been shown to facilitate configural visual encoding - a process that supports the initial perception of a human face. To investigate this apparent contradiction, we directly tested whether power influences the visual encoding of faces. Two experiments, using neural and psychophysical assessments, revealed that low power impeded both first-order configural processing (the encoding of a stimulus as a face, assessed by the N170 event-related potential) and second-order configural processing (the encoding of feature distances within configuration, assessed using the face inversion paradigm), relative to high-power and control conditions. Power did not significantly affect facial feature encoding. Results reveal an early and automatic effect of low power on face perception, characterized primarily by diminished face processing. These findings suggest a novel interplay between visual and cognitive processes in power's influence on social behavior.

When the going gets tough: Power affects the process of making tough decisions

Powerful roles often require individuals to cope with impactful, complicated decisions. The present article reports two experiments investigating the effect of manipulated power mindset on the process of decision-making under different conditions: high vs. low choice conflict (Exp. 1) or high vs. no cognitive load (Exp. 2). Results showed that under the high-choice conflict and high-cognitive load conditions, high-power participants were more likely than low-power participants to take less time, adopt an alternative-based (rather than attribute-based) strategy, rate the tasks as easier, and report higher confidence in and satisfaction with their decisions. Power had no effect on the decision-making process under the low-choice conflict and no-cognitive load conditions. These results suggest that power interacts with choice difficulty to affect the decision-making process.

Psychological power alters cognitive efficiency

Power is known to promote cognitive processing in a goal-directed way. However, it is unknown whether powerful individuals invest more resources when pursuing their goals or whether they invest their resources more efficiently. We examined how experiencing high versus low power affects the efficient investment of cognitive resources using electroencephalography (EEG). Specifically, event-related desynchronization (ERD) in the upper alpha band (10.5-12.75 Hz) was used to quantify the use of cognitive resources during task completion. Results showed that high-power participants used fewer neural resources compared to low-power participants across the whole brain but task performance did not differ between groups. These findings demonstrate that, instead of investing more resources, high-power participants performed the task with greater cognitive efficiency compared to low-power participants. Performing tasks efficiently could help powerholders deal with their demanding jobs and responsibilities.

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.