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 and the confrontation of sexism: the impact of measured and manipulated power on confronting behavior

The confrontation of prejudicial acts and comments promotes multiple benefits, most notably the prevention of future prejudicial remarks and the reduction of stereotype use. Research, however, consistently shows low rates of confronting prejudice, particularly regarding sexism. Here, we examine whether personal sense of power, known to increase action and activate the behavioral approach system, increases the likelihood of confronting a sexist remark. In Study 1, we demonstrate that for both women and men, self-reported power is associated with a higher frequency of confronting sexism. In Study 2, we manipulate women's sense of power (i.e., high power, low power, or control) and subsequently present an opportunity to confront a sexist remark. Results show that women primed to feel powerful were more likely to confront the sexist remark and expressed greater disagreement with the comment, compared to women primed to feel powerless. Implications for the confronting literature and behavior are discussed.

Talking about what would happen versus what happened: Tracking Congressional speeches during COVID-19

In counterfactual thinking, an imagined alternative to the reality that comprises an antecedent and a consequent is widely adopted in political discourse to justify past behaviors (i.e., counterfactual explanation) or to depict a better future (i.e., prefactual). However, they have not been properly addressed in political communication literature. Our study examines how politicians used counterfactual expressions for explanation of the past or preparation of the future during COVID-19, one of the most severe public health crises. All Congressional speeches of the Senate and House in the 116th Congress (2019-2020) were retrieved, and counterfactual expressions were identified along with time-focusing in each speech, using recent advances in natural language processing (NLP) techniques. The results show that counterfactuals were more practiced among Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the House. With the spread of the pandemic, the use of counterfactuals decreased, maintaining a partisan gap in the House. However, it was nearly stable, with no party differences in the Senate. Implications of our findings are discussed, regarding party polarization, institutional constraints, and the quality of Congressional deliberation. Limitations and suggestions for future research are also provided.

Responsible power-holders: when and for what the powerful may assume responsibility

Being in power means that one's actions impact others' situation. Accordingly, power can be seen as opportunity to 'make things happen', which often leads to selfish behavior among the powerful. Yet, power-holders at times also assume responsibility towards others, treating those with low power with more care. Multiple findings support these two sides of power. The present paper adds that power-holders may also take responsibility for the tasks at hand (taking care of organizational success and tasks associated with their role). As such, many findings that power facilitates goal-directedness can be interpreted either in a way that the powerful 'selfishly' make use of opportunities-or rather that they assume task responsibility and make sure to reach (task) goals. Doing so allows to connect power and leadership, gaining a deeper understanding of what power-holders may feel responsible for and how their (social and task) responsibility may contribute to the functioning of hierarchies.

Power's mission: impact and the quest for goal achievement

This article discusses evidence linking power to purpose: that of having an impact in the social environment and carrying out individual or collective aims and desires. First, it highlights the role of goals during the emergence and the exercise of power. Accordingly, it suggests that typical power's mission is to strive for social or personal objectives in social contexts. This includes social influence goals, organizational or personal agendas. Secondly, the article describes how power affects goal-related strategies and cognitive inclinations. Evidence suggests that power triggers prioritization and facilitates the pursuit of any salient goals, filtered by personal values and inclinations of the powerholder. Thirdly, the article examines powerholders' effectiveness of goal pursuit, including their performance on tangible social tasks. Finally, the article ends with a discussion on non-intended consequences of the power-goal links in particular in the social domain.

Power and cognitive functioning

Because powerful people's thinking is impactful, it is critical to understand how power affects cognition. We detail how recent empirical findings reveal that power often improves cognitive functioning. First, power increases controlled processing, in particular intentionality. Second, power improves executive functioning, leading individuals to exhibit better inhibition, working memory, and cognitive flexibility. Third, power increases abstract thinking. Synthesizing these last two points, we propose that high-power individuals' executive functions are enhanced due to their more abstract way of thinking. Both the greater social distance and reduced cognitive vigilance accompanying increased power could explain these effects. Finally, we note remaining questions, such as how much power's cognitive effects are driven by a subjective sense of power versus objective control.

Power and moral thinking

This review synthesizes research on how feelings of power affect the processing of moral information. Although power is typically viewed as a potentially corruptive force that reduces our morality, we propose that power amplifies moral thinking - but does so in different ways that potentially run in opposite directions. Building on the Moral Orientation Scale framework [1^•], we propose that power increases the tendency to deliberate about moral questions, increases the tendency to integrate feelings and cognitions, and increases the adherence to principles and rules. Feelings of power do not corrupt, but lead to a more rich, mature, and multifaceted form of morality.

When those who know do share: Group goals facilitate information sharing, but social power does not undermine it

Good team decisions require that team members share information with each other. Yet, members often tend to selfishly withhold important information. Does this tendency depend on their power within the team? Power-holders frequently act more selfishly (than the powerless)—accordingly, they might be tempted to withhold information. We predicted that given a task goal to ‘solve a task’, power-holders would selfishly share less information than the powerless. However, a group goal to ‘solve the task together’ would compensate for this selfishness, heightening particularly power-holders’ information sharing. In parallel, an individual goal to ‘solve the task alone’ may heighten selfishness and lower information sharing (even) among the powerless. We report five experiments (N = 1305), comprising all studies conducted in their original order. Analyses yielded weak to no evidence for these predictions; the findings rather supported the beneficial role of a group goal to ensure information sharing for both the powerful and the powerless.

The Role of Experimenter Belief in Social Priming

Research suggests that stimuli that prime social concepts can fundamentally alter people’s behavior. However, most researchers who conduct priming studies fail to explicitly report double-blind procedures. Because experimenter expectations may influence participant behavior, we asked whether a short pre-experiment interaction between participants and experimenters would contribute to priming effects when experimenters were not blind to participant condition. An initial double-blind experiment failed to demonstrate the expected effects of a social prime on executive cognition. To determine whether double-blind procedures caused this result, we independently manipulated participants’ exposure to a prime and experimenters’ belief about which prime participants received. Across four experiments, we found that experimenter belief, rather than prime condition, altered participant behavior. Experimenter belief also altered participants’ perceptions of their experimenter, suggesting that differences in experimenter behavior across conditions caused the effect. Findings reinforce double-blind designs as experimental best practice and suggest that people’s prior beliefs have important consequences for shaping behavior with an interaction partner.

Paradoxical Effects of Power on Moral Thinking: Why Power Both Increases and Decreases Deontological and Utilitarian Moral Decisions

The current research explores the role of power in moral decision-making. Some work suggests that power increases utilitarianism; other work suggests power increases deontological judgments. Conversely, we propose that power can both increase and decrease both deontological and utilitarian decisions by building on two recent insights in moral psychology. First, we utilize the moral orientation scale to assess four thinking styles that jointly predict moral dilemma decisions. Second, we employ process dissociation to assess deontological and utilitarian judgments as orthogonal rather than opposite constructs. We conducted two preregistered confirmatory studies that replicated exploratory findings. In Study 1, power increased three moral thinking styles: integration, deliberation, and rule orientation. In Study 2, these decision-making styles simultaneously mediated the effects of power on utilitarian and deontological responses in opposing ways, leading to null effects overall. These results reconcile previous findings and demonstrate the complex yet systematic effects power has on moral decision-making.

Highly identified power-holders feel responsible: The interplay between social identification and social power within groups

Power relations affect dynamics within groups. Power-holders' decisions not only determine their personal outcomes, but also the outcomes of others in the group that they control. Yet, power-holders often tend to overlook this responsibility to take care of collective interests. The present research investigated how social identification - with the group to which both the powerful and the powerless belong - alters perceived responsibility among power-holders (and the powerless). Combining research on social power and social identity, we argue that power-holders perceive more responsibility than the powerless when strongly (rather than when weakly) identifying with the group. A study among leaders and an experiment supported this, highlighting that although power-holders are often primarily concerned about personal outcomes, they do feel responsible for considering others' interests when these others are included in the (social) self.

Improving Physical Task Performance with Counterfactual and Prefactual Thinking

Counterfactual thinking (reflecting on “what might have been”) has been shown to enhance future performance by translating information about past mistakes into plans for future action. Prefactual thinking (imagining “what might be if…”) may serve a greater preparative function than counterfactual thinking as it is future-orientated and focuses on more controllable features, thus providing a practical script to prime future behaviour. However, whether or not this difference in hypothetical thought content may translate into a difference in actual task performance has been largely unexamined. In Experiment 1 (n = 42), participants performed trials of a computer-simulated physical task, in between which they engaged in either task-related hypothetical thinking (counterfactual or prefactual) or an unrelated filler task (control). As hypothesised, prefactuals contained more controllable features than counterfactuals. Moreover, participants who engaged in either form of hypothetical thinking improved significantly in task performance over trials compared to participants in the control group. The difference in thought content between counterfactuals and prefactuals, however, did not yield a significant difference in performance improvement. Experiment 2 (n = 42) replicated these findings in a dynamic balance task environment. Together, these findings provide further evidence for the preparatory function of counterfactuals, and demonstrate that prefactuals share this same functional characteristic.

How Power Affects People: Activating, Wanting, and Goal Seeking

Sociocognitive research has demonstrated that power affects how people feel, think, and act. In this article, I review literature from social psychology, neuroscience, management, and animal research and propose an integrated framework of power as an intensifier of goal-related approach motivation. A growing literature shows that power energizes thought, speech, and action and orients individuals toward salient goals linked to power roles, predispositions, tasks, and opportunities. Power magnifies self-expression linked to active parts of the self (the active self), enhancing confidence, self-regulation, and prioritization of efforts toward advancing focal goals. The effects of power on cognitive processes, goal preferences, performance, and corruption are discussed, and its potentially detrimental effects on social attention, perspective taking, and objectification of subordinates are examined. Several inconsistencies in the literature are explained by viewing power holders as more flexible and dynamic than is usually assumed.

Der Einfluss von Gruppenmitgliedschaften auf den Informationsaustausch mit digitalen Kommunikationsmedien

Zusammenfassung. Digitale Medien sind zum zentralen Mittel des Informationsaustausches in Lern- und Arbeitskontexten geworden. Durch die Reduktion sozialer Hinweisreize während computervermittelter Kommunikation (cvK) kommt der Wahrnehmung sozialer Beziehungen davor eine besondere Bedeutung zu. Dieser Beitrag fasst Forschung zum computervermittelten Informationsaustausch zusammen und legt dabei zwei Schwerpunkte. Zum einen liefert er einen Überblick über Forschung zu sozialem Einfluss (d. h. Informationsrezeption) in cvK. Diese zeigt, dass cvK zu einer stärkeren Orientierung an vor der Kommunikation salienten Selbstaspekten (z. B. gemeinsame Gruppenmitgliedschaften) führt: Ist eine gemeinsame soziale Identität salient, kommt es zu mehr sozialem Einfluss, werden keine (positiven) sozialen Beziehungen wahrgenommen, kommt es zu weniger sozialem Einfluss sowie anderen egozentrischen Tendenzen. Zum anderen wird Forschung zusammengefasst, die belegt, dass die Salienz einer sozialen Identität in cvK die aus negativen Erwartungen, defensiven Selbstregulationsstrategien und sozialer Macht resultierenden egozentrischen Tendenzen kompensieren kann. Die gleichzeitige Berücksichtigung individueller und sozialer Aspekte des Selbst ist somit wesentlich, um Vorhersagen zum medienvermittelten Informationsaustausch treffen zu können.

Prefactual Thoughts: Mental Simulations about What Might Happen

Thought about the future can take many forms, from goal planning to intentions and from fantasies to magical thinking. The term prefactual has guided some past research, yet its potential impact has been hampered by inconsistency in its definition. Here we define prefactual thought as a conditional (if-then) proposition about an action-outcome linkage that may (or may not) take place in the future, such as “If I take action X, it will lead to outcome Y.” A prefactual embraces a causal belief that an action (if taken) will result in the outcome with a high degree of certainty. A form of mental simulation, prefactuals often derive from counterfactuals (which focus on the past) and feed into intentions (which center on the future). This article provides an overview of extant findings, draws connections to goal pursuit and affect regulation, and clarifies the value of the prefactual construct for conceptualizations of prospection.