Induced Social Power Improves Visual Working Memory

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.

Unraveling the social hierarchy: Exploring behavioral and neural dynamics in shaping inhibitory control

Inhibitory control is crucial for regulating emotions, suppressing biases, and inhibiting inappropriate responses in social interactions. Social rank, or perceived position in the hierarchy, can influence inhibitory control, with high-rank individuals requiring it to regulate dominant behavior and low-rank individuals requiring it to regulate emotional reactions or avoid submissive behaviors. Furthermore, research suggests that social status can affect the neural mechanisms underlying inhibitory control, leading to differences in abilities and strategies based on perceived rank. In this study, we investigated the effects of social rank on inhibitory control using a dot estimation task to prime social hierarchy. Subsequently, we assessed the inhibitory control of the participants using a Go/Nogo task with photos of individuals in different social ranks. The study recruited a total of 43 students (22 males and 21 females), with a mean age of 26.8 years (SD=4.08). We measured both behavioral (reaction time and response accuracy) and electrophysiological (N200 and P300 event-related potentials) responses to investigate the neural correlates of inhibitory control. Results showed that participants responded slower to lower-rank individuals but had higher accuracy when inhibiting their response to them. The N200 amplitude was greater when presented with higher ranks stimuli in Go trials, indicating greater conflict monitoring, while the P300 amplitude was significantly higher in Nogo trials compared to Go trials. These findings suggest that social rank can influence inhibitory control and highlight the importance of considering the impact of social hierarchy in social interactions.

Psychological proximity improves reasoning in academic aptitude tests

Performance on standardized academic aptitude tests (AAT) can determine important life outcomes. However, it is not clear whether and which aspects of the content of test questions affect performance. We examined the effect of psychological distance embedded in test questions. In Study 1 (N = 41,209), we classified the content of existing AAT questions as invoking proximal versus distal details. We found better performance with proximal compared to distal questions, especially for low-achieving examinees. Studies 2 and 3 manipulated the distance of questions adapted from AATs and examined three moderators: overall AAT score, working-memory capacity, and presence of irrelevant information. In Study 2 (N = 129), proximity (versus distance) improved the performance of low-achieving participants. In Study 3 (N = 1744), a field study, among low-achieving examinees, proximity improved performance on questions that included irrelevant information. Together, these results suggest that the psychological distance that is invoked by the content of test questions has important consequences for performance in real-life high-stakes tests.

I am entitled to it! Social power and context modulate disadvantageous inequity aversion

Previous research consistently indicated that social power influences one's fairness consideration. However, it is unclear how social power and context jointly affect inequity aversion and whether these processes would be manifested in brain activities. In this study, participants were randomly assigned into either high or low power condition and then took part in a modified ultimatum game (UG) as responders in both gain and loss contexts, with their event-related potentials (ERPs) recorded. Behavioral results showed that powerful participants were more likely to reject unfair offers in both contexts compared with powerless ones. In addition, powerful participants showed a more negative feedback-related negativity (FRN) loss-win difference wave (d-FRN) upon presentation of proposed offers compared with powerless participants only in the gain context. Interestingly, in a later time window, differences of P300 responses to proposed offers were modulated by social power in both gain and loss contexts. These results suggested that powerful people were more sensitive to fairness levels and FRN may manifest fairness consideration in a gain context, but not in a loss context. Meanwhile, P300 is sensitive to fairness considerations in both gain and loss contexts.