Abstract
Possessing social power leads to approach-related affect and behavior, whereas lacking power leads to inhibition (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, Psychol Rev 110:265-284, 2003). However, such effects should be moderated by whether an explanation is given for these power differences. Participants were assigned to a low-power or high-power role and then interacted with a confederate in the opposite role. Participants were told these role assignments were made for legitimate (expertise) or illegitimate (nepotism) reasons, or were given no explanation. High-power participants showed more approach-related affect and behavior and reported less dissonance than low-power participants, but many of these effects were moderated by the presence versus absence of an explanation. When no explanation for power differences was provided, high-power participants exhibited more approach-related behavior than low-power participants but also felt more guilt and unease. Implications for system justification theory and the literature on social power are discussed.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 358-376 |
Number of pages | 19 |
Journal | Social Justice Research |
Volume | 21 |
Issue number | 3 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Sep 2008 |
Keywords
- Approach
- Explanations
- Inhibition
- Legitimacy
- Social power
- System justification
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Anthropology
- Sociology and Political Science
- Law